Fox News fans celebrate Jimmy Carter having cancer in his brain, 'good riddance'

When former President Jimmy Carter announced he had cancer earlier this month, many were sympathetic and offered their best wishes. While the majority of the responses were positive, not everyone was as caring.

After Carter announced his cancer had spread, Fox News sent a negative tweet about his presidency, "Our country has not been as aimless & lost as it is today since, I think, Jimmy Carter." Taking the criticism ever further was conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, who tweeted out "A cancer has a cancer. Oops, I mean Jimmy Carter has cancer. Same diff." Jimmy Carter announced on August 20 that his cancer had spread to his brain, and some Fox News viewers rejoiced with pleasure on the network's Facebook page.
"That's Karma Jimmy, it will get you," one Fox News' fan said. "You said Homosexuality was OK and you claim to be a Christian? And a Baptist preacher? And Now you have cancer? Karma Buddy." Another Fox News viewer wrote "Brain cancer explains some of his lib policies," and "The worse president we ever had, oh wait Obama. How many died because of this man. Bye bye Jimmy."
Other users brought up his personal politics, stating, "The only thing I am appreciative of peanut Jimmy is that his incompetence made it that much easier for Ronald Reagan to win. Good riddance peanut Jimmy." The outpouring of hatred for Carter, with one Fox News fan saying, "I'm so sorry he has cancer, but he needs to keep his mouth shut, because he is a complete idiot." Not all comments were negative, however, as others offered their best wishes and prayers to the former president, calling out those who offered such vitriolic statements.
Carter became president by defeating Republican Gerald Ford in the 1976 election. After four years of inflation and the Iran hostage crisis, Republican Ronald Reagan was able to defeat Carter and the wave of Reaganomics and greed overtook the United States. Before becoming president, Carter was the governor of Georgia, and reached the rank of Lieutenant while serving in the United States Navy between 1943 and 1953. Following his presidency, Carter opened the "Carter Center" and won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-fans-celebrate-jimmy-carter-s-cancer-spreading-to-his-brain-bye-bye


I swear it watching Fox News should be grounds for having the men in white coats come and take you away.

Doesn't matter how much you dislike someone, those sort of comments are hideous.

Yes, some nasty people out there... but quite tame compared what happened here when thatcher died...!

same sort of sick mentality though Tommy....

I didnt like thatcher or her politics, but the reaction to her death sickened me to the core.
and this is of the same ........

The jeered when Saddam was hanged, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein

only some one very twisted could consider sadam to be in any way similar to thatcher or carter

victorismyhero wrote:only some one very twisted could consider sadam to be in any way similar to thatcher or carter

Let's face it vic, you are not the brightest bulb on the three. Maybe the comparison isn't on the person, but on the people doing the jeering. That's the activity we are talking about...or did you miss that.

Clean a shotgun, drink some warm milk and get some sleep. Tomorrow's another ten minutes of wakey time for you, swifty.

Original Quill wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:only some one very twisted could consider sadam to be in any way similar to thatcher or carter

Let's face it vic, you are not the brightest bulb on the three.  Maybe the comparison isn't on the person, but on the people doing the jeering.  That's the activity we are talking about...or did you miss that.

Clean a shotgun, drink some warm milk and get some sleep.  Tomorrow's another ten minutes of wakey time for you, swifty.  

You mean the most intelligent poster on here Victor?
I may not always agree with him, but he reasons better than any hope to ever do so on here, hence why I respect him the most.
Saddam committed mass genocide and its argued that if he had not been removed from powers millions more would have died more so than if there had been an invasion. I have no doubt that an Arab spring would have come to Iraq also and that the death toll from such a tyrant would have far exceeded his earlier crimes of geneocide.
If people equate that to the policies of Thatcher then they are clearly deluded.
People have disliked many politicians in this country, but to celebrate their deaths?


So lets talk about the people doing the jeering?
Would they or did they cheer when Churchill was dead, who allowed millions of Indians to starve to death due to his poor views on Asians?
No, but these same people celebrated when she died and posted songs like the "wicked witch is dead".
So yes lets compare the same people who celebrated, because both charcters were giants in the political world and for good or bad, they certainly deserve a little bit of respect. It is hate that is driving their reasoning, which means who do so are driven by hate.

umm no one but propagandist suggest Saddam was that bad he didn't kill millions either or commit genocide (name the people he genocided). the only group he is accused of war crimes against is the Kurd's that Turkey is currently committing war crimes against.
Saddam's Only Actual claim to the history books is the employment of the most teachers in a single policy.

Thatcher Started a war on the other side of the planet from her home.. to suggest she is in any way less evil is silly. she was the last reminder of the Evil that was colonialism. the very idea of 'making a claim on lands a continent away from your nation' is one of the most evil things mankind has ever done.

Truth is none of those people are good, but bad enough to cheer their death... not really (unless you are directly effected)

veya_victaous wrote:umm no one but propagandist suggest Saddam was that bad he didn't kill millions either or commit genocide (name the people he genocided). the only group he is accused of war crimes against is the Kurd's that Turkey is currently committing war crimes against.
Saddam's Only Actual claim to the history books is the employment of the most teachers in a single policy.

Thatcher Started a war on the other side of the planet from her home.. to suggest she is in any way less evil is silly. she was the last reminder of the Evil that was colonialism. the very idea of 'making a claim on lands a continent away from your nation' is one of the most evil things mankind has ever done.

Truth is none of those people are good, but bad enough to cheer their death... not really (unless you are directly effected)

Then you clearly know nothing of history, I can go on about the Iran war, or the uprising in 1991 the later of which up to 200,000 people died. To suggest the only group he was guilty of genocide is the Kurds is so failing to have studied history.
Top suggest or even equate her to Saddam is nothing short of bonkers to say the least.
So you tell me how in any shape or form Thatcher similar to Saddam?
Thatcher did not start a war but retake invaded lands which the people through self determination wanted to remian British, of which the death toll was in the hundreds.
Again its the same points I raise again, people of hate look for reasons to hate


:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"  

This shows the direct deaths caused by Saddam.

umm genocide is not just killing people you have to be trying to wipe them out

even you quote says under 17% were killed by him and the remain 83% were collateral damage of the Iran war.

and the US killed more directly and as collateral damage in the first 4 years of the invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time

this shows that he cannot have committed genocide if the USA managed to kill more people than he did, after he was already dead

Thatcher is worse in principal
Falklands... Illegal invasion on another continent ... zero threat to thatcher or the UK. absolutely no business being anywhere in that region of the planet.
lord knows what sort of death toll she would have achieved if she was attacking people that were less than 10,000 miles away across an entire ocean.

veya_victaous wrote:umm genocide is not just killing people you have to be trying to wipe them out

even you quote says under 17% were killed by him and the remain 83% were collateral damage of the Iran war.

and the US killed more directly and as collateral damage in the first 4 years of the invasion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time

this shows that he cannot have committed genocide if the USA managed to kill more people than he did, after he was already dead

Thatcher is worse in principal
Falklands... Illegal invasion on another continent ... zero threat to thatcher or the UK.  absolutely no business being anywhere in that region of the planet.
lord knows what sort of death toll she would have achieved if she was attacking people that were less than 10,000 miles away across an entire ocean.

Do you understand the difference between indirect and direct casualties of war?
Clearly not, the direct death toll from the inavsions is in the thousands, but nothing compared to the actual insurgency attacks, of which would have happened without an invasion, which you fail to grasp. Like I say with the Arab springs these insurgencies would have happened and the death toll would have dwarfed that has happened already under someone like Saddam.
Please stay out of historical debates Veya, as its clear you know very little on the matter and stick to science.
Illegal invasion?
Balderdash, the Argies illegally invaded the Islands and took them by force, from the people who through self determination wanted to remain British. So you either back self determination or you are against and thus back an illegal invasion by the Argies, which again amounted in the amount of a few hundred deaths, which you now equate to hundreds of thousands under Saddam.
That is bonkers and like I say only a person of hate would look for such a poor reason to justify hate and make Thatcher equal to Saddam.
So I suggest you stick to Physics, because your ability to understand history is far removed.

Anyway I am off to work and will reply to any further replies then.
If people think no such civil war would have erupted as it has in Syria because of the Arab springs in Iraq, then they fail to rationalise anything.

Didge wrote:You mean the most intelligent poster on here Victor?
I may not always agree with him, but he reasons better than any hope to ever do so on here, hence why I respect him the most.

I’m not worried about vic, he’s a drunk and an intellectual cuckold.  The thread is about certain responses to a political symbol, confronting death.

Didge wrote:Saddam committed mass genocide and its argued that if he had not been removed from powers millions more would have died more so than if there had been an invasion. I have no doubt that an Arab spring would have come to Iraq also and that the death toll from such a tyrant would have far exceeded his earlier crimes of geneocide.
If people equate that to the policies of Thatcher then they are clearly deluded.
People have disliked many politicians in this country, but to celebrate their deaths?

You are such an easy mark for the prototypical line.  It this case, it’s the Republican lies of Bush and Cheney, employed to start a war.  Yet you still believe them.  Chrissake, you probably think there are still WMD’s hidden away.

Didge wrote:So lets talk about the people doing the jeering?
Would they or did they cheer when Churchill was dead, who allowed millions of Indians to starve to death due to his poor views on Asians?
No, but these same people celebrated when she died and posted songs like the "wicked witch is dead".
So yes lets compare the same people who celebrated, because both charcters were giants in the political world and for good or bad, they certainly deserve a little bit of respect. It is hate that is driving their reasoning, which means who do so are driven by hate.

You are getting there.  Carter is too close to an open wound.  He was the Democrat who followed the apologist for Richard Nixon…Gerald Ford.  Democrats love him because he has such noble principles.  Republicans hate him because he was the ‘walk-away’ man from a Republican disaster…and the fact that he has white shoes on only rubs their nose in it more.  

Nixon’s evil, in many ways, was the reason for Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s venom, the rise of the Neo-Cons and the Republican’s acceptance of anti-Americanism, and such practices as rape, murder, kidnapping, torture and war crimes in the second Iraq war.  If you like, those were the Republican reduction of cognitive dissonance. After Nixon, Republicans went to the Dark Side.  Nixon’s failure is the reason why the Republicans are so squirrely today.  His failure was the failure of the Republican Party, just as Saddam’s hanging was the failure of the Baath Party’s reign in the Levant.

Important symbols get jeers and cheers.  Jimmy Carter means a lot more to Republicans than just another nice guy on the other side.

Well being as you insult the most intelligent and respected poster here with unfounded claims, it clearly stems from jealousy it seems, which is very telling about you.

Again you make a vert idiot view on the Republicans, because let me again explain I did not back the Iraq war or the reasoning used by Bush. That shows you fail to understand the points I am making and yet again go off your mad obsession you have and hatred off the Reublicans. I do not even discount the part played by the US which has led to direct and indirect deaths but what you fail to do is have any comprehension of any conflict or what led to many further deaths, which stem from previous attrocities committed by Saddam going back to the 1991 uprising.

So you did not actually address my points on the comparrison of treating politicians, where I brought up Churchill and Thatcher and how those who cheered Thatchers death did not do the same with Churchill, mainly because they know they would be ridiculed for doing so when both were giants in the Political world.

You are not even worthy of respect when you make such claims of posters who actually are just that much better than you, its time you recognised your limitations Quill. When you show some decency to Victor and apologise for your pathetic immature remarks then I will bother to even egenage your poor inane posts

So you have gone nowhere and are going backwards with your inane hatred of people who are Republicans which you sterotype poorly as all the same. It makes you no better than those makingt he viles remarks about Carter.

If quill is to stupid to see the difference then that is no skin off my nose, but just to perhaps inform his tiny mindlets look at the situation of those doing the jeering

most (though granted not all) of those jeering at sadams's hanging were those who had suffered (and I mean suffered) as in being persecuted, by him. more over we have to recognise that there are some cultural differences between those peoples and the west.

most of those who jeered at thatcher had no just cause to have such vitriol, (talking about here in england)
and those who are now currently jeering at carter likewise have no such cause for their behaviour.

I would imagine many many folks cheered at the time when the nazi war criminals were justly executed and for good reason.

however quill...just keep taking the meds.....

Thatcher reacted to a hostile invasion of British territory that was in itself an act of aggression and act of provocation and war.


She ordered the military action to recover British territory and enforce secure zone around area.


The disgusting behaviour by the lefties here when they danced around celebrating her death and singing the song etc... was nothing to do with falklands war... labour were responsible for the illegal Iraq war and the lefties even voted labour in again after it!!!

Didge wrote:So you did not actually address my points on the comparrison of treating politicians, where I brought up Churchill and Thatcher and how those who cheered Thatchers death did not do the same with Churchill, mainly because they know they would be ridiculed for doing so when both were giants in the Political world.

Read the title of this thread, you weak-minded idiot.  It's not about Churchill.  It's not about Thacker, or whatever her name was.

Truth be told, it's not about Saddam.  He's just a convenient example, apropos because of nimwits like you who want war for the fun of it.

The subject matter of this thread is a rebellion of sorts, in which the worst elements of a decayed political party undress and show their bits in a display of disapproval of a certain man who was almost a bystander.  Jimmy Carter capped the end of the Republican Party.  

If you think about, Republicans were finished effectively by Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929), when the Great Depression showed their feckless programs were were more ideology than policy (which they still manifest today).  But in post-WWII they had a renaissance of sorts with the Cold War.  In came Eisenhower, a reasonable and popular soul, giving us four years of relative peace and prosperity.

But Eisenhower was followed by the the defeat of Nixon, and the reins of the Republican Party passed to those who bemoaned the loss of ideology...Goldwater and the wingnuts of the Orange County/Phoenix Republicans.  Goldwater was rejected, but this created space for Nixon again in vacuo.  Nixon appeared the best against a weak Hubert Humphrey.  

Then the Democrats went into a liberal renaissance themselves, and put up radical George McGovern in 1972.  The net effect of this was that revived Nixon-by-vacuum was boosted to the status of invincible.  Indeed, Nixon himself said, "When the President does it, it's not against the law."  This was a dangerous political theory, which led directly to Watergate.

Watergate and the Nixon resignation in the face of an impeachment threat, was the end of the Republican Party.  Republicans know this and respond bitterly even today.  You look at Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, David Addington, John Bolton, John Ashcroft, and others (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/01/17/34948/bush-43-worst/), and you see the ruins of the Republican Party of the Nixon era, today.  These are men so bitter that they would stoop to lying to start wars, they accept and even applaud torture, kidnapping, rape and murder: "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal..." All the Republican Party was in the wake of Nixon was decaying matter.

Look at the Republicans today.  Once dignified business men in gray flannel suits, they are now Aryan Supremacists, anti-government gun nuts, a choice between Donald Trump or government 'do-nothings' like House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who once said he would see the destruction of America before  he would respect an African American President.  All of this is the progeny of the failure of Richard Nixon.

Comes now lil ole Jimmy Carter, and becomes the first Democrat elected to the presidential office.  His appearance represents and marks the monumental failure of the Republican Party.  All of that pent up hatred and self-loathing among Republicans is bound to be aimed at Carter.  Republicans need a massive reduction of cognitive dissonance.  In order to feel good about themselves, they need to believe that all that they did was all right.  And here's Jimmy Carter, erected like a monument to the end of an era of corruption and dishonesty.  How would you feel?

Oh, and um...the last of the legacy of Republicans was GWB, a pathetic child treated as a puppet by the corrupters of the Nixon era.  Consistent with their ideological personality, they launch right back into starting another war on--typical--false pretenses.  And lo, Didge, here you are, wanting to do it all over again.  Why?  Because when we do it, it isn't against the law.

The cheering when Margaret Thatcher died was disgusting.

I didn't approve of the execution of Saddam Hussein, the fact that it was on the TV, or the jeering.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:So you did not actually address my points on the comparrison of treating politicians, where I brought up Churchill and Thatcher and how those who cheered Thatchers death did not do the same with Churchill, mainly because they know they would be ridiculed for doing so when both were giants in the Political world.

Read the title of this thread, you weak-minded idiot.  It's not about Churchill.  It's not about Thacker, or whatever her name was.

Truth be told, it's not about Saddam.  He's just a convenient example, apropos because of nimwits like you who want war for the fun of it.

The subject matter of this thread is a rebellion of sorts, in which the worst elements of a decayed political party undress and show their bits in a display of disapproval of a certain man who was almost a bystander.  Jimmy Carter capped the end of the Republican Party.  

If you think about, Republicans were finished effectively by Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929), when the Great Depression showed their feckless programs were were more ideology than policy (which they still manifest today).  But in post-WWII they had a renaissance of sorts with the Cold War.  In came Eisenhower, a reasonable and popular soul, giving us four years of relative peace and prosperity.

But Eisenhower was followed by the the defeat of Nixon, and the reins of the Republican Party passed to those who bemoaned the loss of ideology...Goldwater and the wingnuts of the Orange County/Phoenix Republicans.  Goldwater was rejected, but this created space for Nixon again in vacuo.  Nixon appeared the best against a weak Hubert Humphrey.  

Then the Democrats went into a liberal renaissance themselves, and put up radical George McGovern in 1972.  The net effect of this was that revived Nixon-by-vacuum was boosted to the status of invincible.  Indeed, Nixon himself said, "When the President does it, it's not against the law."  This was a dangerous political theory, which led directly to Watergate.

Watergate and the Nixon resignation in the face of an impeachment threat, was the end of the Republican Party.  Republicans know this and respond bitterly even today.  You look at Rumsfeld and Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, David Addington, John Bolton, John Ashcroft, and others (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/01/17/34948/bush-43-worst/), and you see the ruins of the Republican Party of the Nixon era, today.  These are men so bitter that they would stoop to lying to start wars, they accept and even applaud torture, kidnapping, rape and murder: "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal..." All the Republican Party was in the wake of Nixon was decaying matter.

Look at the Republicans today.  Once dignified business men in gray flannel suits, they are now Aryan Supremacists, anti-government gun nuts, a choice between Donald Trump or government 'do-nothings' like House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who once said he would see the destruction of America before  he would respect an African American President.  All of this is the progeny of the failure of Richard Nixon.

Comes now lil ole Jimmy Carter, and becomes the first Democrat elected to the presidential office.  His appearance represents and marks the monumental failure of the Republican Party.  All of that pent up hatred and self-loathing among Republicans is bound to be aimed at Carter.  Republicans need a massive reduction of cognitive dissonance.  In order to feel good about themselves, they need to believe that all that they did was all right.  And here's Jimmy Carter, erected like a monument to the end of an era of corruption and dishonesty.  How would you feel?

Oh, and um...the last of the legacy of Republicans was GWB, a pathetic child treated as a puppet by the corrupters of the Nixon era.  Consistent with their ideological personality, they launch right back into starting another war on--typical--false pretenses.  And lo, Didge, here you are, wanting to do it all over again.  Why?  Because when we do it, it isn't against the law.

What on earth are you going on about?

You have gone so off tangent it is unbelieveable.

Main point made rightly by Tommy was how some cheered when Maggie was dead and rightly stated how it is no different here to how some have been utterly disgusting with Carter.
In both cases its wrong.
I have no need for a history lesson thanks or views on American politics.

Didge wrote:I have no need for a history lesson thanks or views...

Which is the reason why you never went to university or learned to think.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I have no need for a history lesson thanks or views...

Which is the reason why you never went to university or learned to think.

If that is what you think, no problem, but is a very poor deflection

Still not addressing the actual point made in how some danced for joy when Maggie died, which is no better here with how such are being vile with Carter.

Who will ever forget the joy Tom Sawyer expressed as each bullet slammed into an innocent kid from Anders Breivik.
Before he realised Breivik was a fellow extreme RWer, Sawyer was full of anger, as he thought the mass murderer was a Muslim.

I think part of this is the influence of Trump. He's perceived as gaining in popularity by having no filter between his brain and mouth, and other right-wingers have been jumping on board with him.

Mike Huckabee, for example, used to comport himself as a gentleman -- now that he's running against Donald Trump for the GOP nomination, he's saying Obama's Iran deal is leading Israelis "to the door of the oven."

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think part of this is the influence of Trump. He's perceived as gaining in popularity by having no filter between his brain and mouth, and other right-wingers have been jumping on board with him.

Mike Huckabee, for example, used to comport himself as a gentleman -- now that he's running against Donald Trump for the GOP nomination, he's saying Obama's Iran deal is leading Israelis "to the door of the oven."

I respectfully disagree.  Trump is the effect, not the cause.  Trump is a significant part of the craziness that is the Republican Party today.  

Four years ago Trump was the leader of the birther movement, alleging that Obama was born in Kenya.  The party that lied to get us into the Iraq War, now is looking at Trump as the possible candidate for President.  Both phenomena are the result of an ideology lost because its core values have proved disastrous.  

Add to that an immoral war in which torture, rape and killing are acceptable, and an internecine political plan in which one party actually attacks the country before it will see the other party win, and you have before you a massive display of suicidal self-destruction.

Contemplate these Republicans, wishfully fancying a return to power, and put yourself in their shoes.  Do they think the country will ever return to the normal that they want?  Their sins have set a precedent for all to follow.  The new normal is now the Patriot Act.  The new normal now is that rape, torture, kidnapping and murder are acceptable tools of politics.  The new normal now is that one political party will work for the downfall of the country before it will accept the success of the other party.  The new normal now is to publicly tout lies in place of truth; and without truth the machinery doesn't work.  The new normal is for the whole goddam mess to come to a halt.  The new normal is to run for Congress in order to go on welfare.

Folks, you got some waking up to do.  Trump is not controlling things any more than a surfer controls the wave.  It's a happening...and all because of not wanting a black president.  See?  I told you racism would bring this country down.