Khamenei calls elections a victory for Iran (1 Viewer)

[RebSaint]

I think that was Jackson and it was his wife.

She was divorced and there was some question over whether her divorce had been done properly. It probably wasn't. She was probably illegally married to two men at the same time.

I lectured on it today. Her husband lied to her about granting the divorce, so when she married Jackson, she was technically a bigamist and an aldulterer.

Of course, they legally got everything straightened out (4 years later), but still J.Q Adams in 1828 used it as campaign fodder.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

There was never a time when the President of the U.S. was immune to slander, name calling, rumor mongering, etc. Look up James Callender and some of the things he wrote about John Adams. Of course he was being paid to slander Adams by Thomas Jefferson. He then turned on Jefferson and broke the news about Jefferson's concubine, one Sally Hemmings.

Politics have always been nasty in this country.

 

[BullDawg]

But it still begs the question. Why are you insistent on obsessing over it? And why do you think it is so important that it merits rigorous analysis?

Dan Rather and Cindy Sheehan have been quite lately? :dunno:

 

[DadsDream]

Dan Rather and Cindy Sheehan have been quite lately? :dunno:

No, they haven't.

Really, this is all non-news.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I've actually come to the conclusion it's the President and the Republicans that have emboldened our enemies. By saying things like a vote for the Democrats is a vote for the terrorist to win and Democrats don't care about national security it has led the terrorists to believe this. Thus with the Democrats winning the mid terms the terrorists actually believe they will now win thanks to the Republican rhetoric and will fight harder and strive to kill more Americans.












OK, I don't really believe that but I think it's as valid as the arguments from Republicans that the terrorists are actually happy.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I've actually come to the conclusion it's the President and the Republicans that have emboldened our enemies. By saying things like a vote for the Democrats is a vote for the terrorist to win and Democrats don't care about national security it has led the terrorists to believe this. Thus with the Democrats winning the mid terms the terrorists actually believe they will now win thanks to the Republican rhetoric and will fight harder and strive to kill more Americans.












OK, I don't really believe that but I think it's as valid as the arguments from Republicans that the terrorists are actually happy.

Great minds think alike. I was wondering who came up with the term's cut and run, and saying that voting for the Democrats would be helping the terrorists... it was the Republicans.

Of course, DD's point still applies -- they use our words for their propaganda.

 

[blackadder]

To some degree we have to agree that the constant disrespect shown to our elected leader (President Bush) and leaders lends to the morale of the terrorists groups. There was a time when the office of President was esteemed and revered. If we can't so much as respect the office(s) how can we expect them to respect our nation, our leaders. This may seem simplistic but it's true. I'm not saying you have to agree and train your mind to all he (Pres.) says I'm just saying show some decency and order. When you have people (esp. Congress men/women) calling the President degrading names how can we expect any other nation to respect him when he stands before them on our behalf.
IMO the reason these terrorists leaders think this of the Dems is because a great deal of the Dems say so much themselves. The retreat of our troops in Iraq would not only allow terrorists to focus their energy, money, hatred, lies, and lust for death back to America and other countries; it would also give them a sense of victory. A dangerous confidence to reach their blood riddled hands abroad. The war in Iraq is one of the oldest military defense techniques known: you take the fight to the enemy so the enemy can't bring it to you.

Your logic is valid only as a defense of STAYING in Iraq.

Going into Iraq WAS NOT aimed at "taking the fight to the enemy," since there were no jihadis in Iraq. Saddam and the secular Baathists made sure of that.

If the idea was to explicitly draw jihadis to Iraq and fight a war at the expense of the Iraqis, killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process and reducing their country to rubble, then this will come back to haunt us through yet some other unintneded consequence years down the road that will be traced back to this blunder.

Kinda like the Islamic revolution in Iran can be traced back to the CIA coup that put the bloodthirsty Shah in power.

Intervention does not pay.

 

[Mr. Paul Caruso]

I've actually come to the conclusion it's the President and the Republicans that have emboldened our enemies. By saying things like a vote for the Democrats is a vote for the terrorist to win and Democrats don't care about national security it has led the terrorists to believe this. Thus with the Democrats winning the mid terms the terrorists actually believe they will now win thanks to the Republican rhetoric and will fight harder and strive to kill more Americans.

Wow, I couldn't disagree with you more. It was a strategery to draw the terrorists to Iraq and Ascrackastan.

As for the dems, unless I see Lucifer walking with ice skates over his shoulder, this WOT will go down the tubes fast. I can only hope I'm wrong

 

[blackadder]

I've actually come to the conclusion it's the President and the Republicans that have emboldened our enemies. By saying things like a vote for the Democrats is a vote for the terrorist to win and Democrats don't care about national security it has led the terrorists to believe this. Thus with the Democrats winning the mid terms the terrorists actually believe they will now win thanks to the Republican rhetoric and will fight harder and strive to kill more Americans.

Wow, I couldn't disagree with you more. It was a strategery to draw the terrorists to Iraq and Ascrackastan.

As for the dems, unless I see Lucifer walking with ice skates over his shoulder, this WOT will go down the tubes fast. I can only hope I'm wrong

No, it was about WMD...er...democracy...er...umm....

Really, you think its OK to intentionally pick this fight in someone else's backyard and reduce their country to rubble when they are not the people who attacked us?

So, you are willing to fight Al Queda to the last Iraqi huh?

Karma is gonna be a biatch someday.

 

[tak]

I didn't miss your point. The OFFICE itself, minus of who sits in it, has always been a prestigious one. You want to argue that Bush is above criticism because of this magical "reverence" and "respect" everybody should have for the president. I don't buy it, and disagree.

And no, there shouldn't be any "reverence" for anybody who occupies the office. Every president should be judged on how well he does in the position. Nothing more, nothing less.

The presidency isn't some divine right monarchy where there's some pre-ordained reverence that automatically comes with the position.

Again you should read more carefully and less presumptuously. I never specified Bush alone but the office period. I'm referring to anyone who holds the office of President. Never stated that the Presidents should be above criticism just that they should be respected. It is possible to criticize, even passionately, and remain respectful.

Let me simplify: How would you feel if our Presidents behaved as childishly as some of them have behaved towards them. Referring to other elected and selected officials as dogs, and various expletives? Honestly what would your reaction be? We expect certain people to behave a certain way, we should expect the same of ourselves. No one goes into a courtroom with this lack of respect without being held in contempt. I venture to say the office of President of the U.S.A. should garner at least the same amount of respect.

 

[RebSaint]

Again you should read more carefully and less presumptuously. I never specified Bush alone but the office period. I'm referring to anyone who holds the office of President. Never stated that the Presidents should be above criticism just that they should be respected. It is possible to criticize, even passionately, and remain respectful.

Can't say that I disagree, but I would argue that "even passionately, and remain respectful" is up to interpretation, and those who defend a president or more likely to claim that the other side is crossing the line.

But this idea that all of a sudden everybody is going to refrain from mocking and insulting the president--which is part of American history and part of the culture of criticizing leaders is a bit ridiculous.

You're still assuming that there's some continuity in how popular culture and political opponents treat the president. Nothing further could be from the truth. Those who agree, respect, and like what presidents do are going to be shocked and offended at those who make fun of, insult, and mock the president.

And where is the criticism coming from? National Politicians? ordinary people? state politicians?

 

[tak]

Can't say that I disagree, but I would argue that "even passionately, and remain respectful" is up to interpretation, and those who defend a president or more likely to claim that the other side is crossing the line.

But this idea that all of a sudden everybody is going to refrain from mocking and insulting the president--which is part of American history and part of the culture of criticizing leaders is a bit ridiculous.

You're still assuming that there's some continuity in how popular culture and political opponents treat the president. Nothing further could be from the truth. Those who agree, respect, and like what presidents do are going to be shocked and offended at those who make fun of, insult, and mock the president.

And where is the criticism coming from? National Politicians? ordinary people? state politicians?

It is quite obvious when the line is crossed, that is what I mean by having tact. And just because something has been done for a long time doesn't mean that it is justifiable or right. My ancestors were abused in slavery for hundreds of years and not a single year passing made it anymore more right than the year before. The heart turns to stone and insensitive when something wrong is done for so long, it becomes easy.