Well, he does think terrorist aren't as much of a problem as civilized countries are. From Wikipedia:
In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, published in November 2006, Carter states:
Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land.[132]

I think countries should have friends too. Before Obama started destroying America's relationships American and the United Kingdom could be said to be friends. I hope our next president is able to restore that relationship.

It is the duty of the America government to protect the rights of Americans. It is not their duty to protect the rights of foreigners. Foreigners have their own countries that are responsible for protecting their rights. If they don't want Americans spying on them, and we can presume Americans don't want those foreign government spying on Americans, then the government of both countries need to put in defensive measure for their citizens or, even better, work out agreements not to spy on each other's citizens.

What religion is this? If you can actually prove that your religion forbids all these things, then I can see the government making an accommodation on the taxes (like they have done on the draft at times - for people who can really prove it). As for the food, electric bill, and TV, you'll have to either figure out how to do without or figure out how get those without violating anyone else's rights. I suppose you could become a simple farmer like the Amish who seem to be able to avoid paying for any of those things. I'm not sure how they handle taxes. It might be worth looking into. It seems doubtful their income would cover their property taxes if the property is taxed at the same rate as everyone else's.

You pay for your health care, you get to decide what kind you have. If someone else pays for your healthcare, they get to decide.

Perhaps your complaint should be with a government that insists on making it difficult for people to buy their own healthcare and tries to make them get it through their employers. Or you could choose a new employer or even start your own job. Sure it would be inconvenient, but nothing like the inconvenience of forcing people to choose between their livelihoods and their freedom of conscience.

If Carter thinks people should have civil rights, why does he support people like Chavez, Ortega and Castro?

BTW, being a liberal, in the American vernacular, has nothing to do with supporting civil rights. In fact one of the main reasons I'm not a liberal is I strongly believe the government should treat people equally regardless of race and ought to allow people a great deal more freedom than it currently does.

The sad thing is, he doesn't hide what he ought to be ashamed of. While supporting some bad guys while you're president might be necessary so they can help you fight off more dangerous bad guys (see American support for Stalin, Chiang, et al.), Carter since leaving office has supported bad guys around the world, often in opposition to American policy.

He supported Castro, Chavez, Ortega, and even tried to help NK leader Kim undermine Obama's containment policies.

If Carter thinks Snowden did a good thing, that seems to be pretty good evidence that Snowden did something awful.

How many of those were in China?



(and since it is the WHO which is part of the UN and thus kowtows to China, we'll have to subtract the numbers from Taiwan ourselves)

I used to think the same way - mostly as a act of faith or dogma. But as I get older, learn more about history, the world, and science, I find myself doubting my earlier faith.

On an individual leverl, discrimination remains both stupid and wrong. Men are taller than women in general, but if you need something off the top shelf you don't ask Danny Devito instead of Geena Davis just because Danny Devito is a man.

However for social policy we may have to come to terms with differences. Perhaps the liberals when they insist on affirmative action aren't being racist, they're just being realistic about how unfair advantage is the only way to let some groups succeed. It may be that conservatives are wrong to think that if we treat everyone equally the achievements of racial groups will even out over time. And if equality between groups is necessary for social stability - maybe we have to discriminate.

It's scary to think that racial differences may be significant because of the social questions it raises. But we may have to stop burying our heads and look at the statistics with an open mind.

I know what your president told you. But http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-progressive-groups/2158831/

I think using an entire branch of government, and one of the most feared branches at that (the IRS), is a bit more serious than a burglary (even if the burglary is blue-collar while the abuse of power is white-collar).

Don't be so hard on the media. It took them a year to break the IRS scandal news, and then they forgot about it once the President had some up with a barely plausible denial. It only took them 5 months to catch on to the bridge thing, and you can be they'll be talking about it until Christie has a serious conservative opponent.

So based on those two data points we have a press that is getting faster at recognizing scandals and is focusing on them longer. That's good, right?

If I had made that list it would focus on two events
* The closing of national parks, blocking of scenic overlooks, etc. that were often unnecessary and in fact more expensive than not doing them during the government shutdown. The President was attempting to blame Republicans for pain he was inflicting.
. * The IRS targeting of conservative groups that effectively prevented them from having a strong effect during the 2012 election.

You're right. Maybe we should do something about that guy.

But we won't. When Nixon did similar stuff, the Republican senators went to him and told him it was time to go. He resigned in disgrace. The Republican senators and representatives were punished mercilessly for it and lost many seats in Congress. The Democrats have learned the lesson well - in this age of widespread ignorance their political fortunes depend more on the popularity of their president or presidential candidate than it does on their individual actions. The demonstrated in with Clinton that they will defend their guy no matter what (even when he lies under oath - that used to be a big deal). They certainly won't go after Obama.

Myths: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350595/five-irs-scandal-myths-andrew-stiles