Khamenei calls elections a victory for Iran (1 Viewer)

[DadsDream]

It's non-news. I'm fascinated with non-news.

Labeling a post as non-news is the new censorship.

"Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei," that's what Iran's news agency calls the guy.

All bow to "Supreme Leader."

Wait...non-news...nevermind.
http://www.irannewsdaily.com/view_news.asp?id=141126

 

[DadsDream]

More non-news:

"When we were young boys... I cannot forget the sight of the American forces leaving Vietnam in helicopters, which carried their officers and soldiers. Some Vietnamese, who had fought alongside the Americans, tried to climb into these helicopters, but the [Americans] threw them to the ground, abandoned them, and left. This is the sight I anticipate in our region."
Hezbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, Oct. 31, 2006, Al-Jazeera

http://www.memritv.org/data/thumbnails/clip_1309.jpg

 

[blackadder]

So, let's ignore a pronouncement by the religious leader of Iran. It's non-news. Takes up space on an open forum.

Disregard this whole thread. It's non-news.

Hey DD,

Did you see that the sun came out today????

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It seems to me the lesson to be learned is to not get involved in wars overseas without a quick definable exit strategy, and not worry about what government is set up afterwards.

 

[saintfan-n-alex]

GWB didnt loose an election, do nothing reps did

the fact these people think poorly of us - is not news

the fact they are taking the dems victory as a "major change" in US policy in our dealing with Iraq and Iran illustartes they dont know much about our political system.

the fact rummy was fired was not related to elections, he was gone prior to that, it just wants formally announced

rummy's firing and Gates influnce\input to GWB will be what changes our policy in regards to Iran\Iraq, either that or the next presidents policies being different from GWB (assuming gates gets the job)

 

[tomwaits]

Terrorists want big pieces, little prices.

 

[tak]

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.

 

[RebSaint]

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.
.

It is simplistic, and you are advocating believing and following everything this administration puts out, and you seem to not have any idea that the real American [tm] way is actually a people, media, and political system which celebrates criticism, debate, and questioning our leaders.

You are woefully misinformed regarding the history of criticism of presedents. Going back to Washington, the occupier of the White House has been subjected to degrading names, criticism, and disrespect.

There was never a time when the office of the presidency was so esteemed the pres. was beyond criticism, even to the point of mockery and derision. Your claim is simply a historical stereotype based on misinformation.

 

[tak]

It is simplistic, and you are advocating believing and following everything this administration puts out, and you seem to not have any idea that the real American [tm] way is actually a people, media, and political system which celebrates criticism, debate, and questioning our leaders.

You are woefully misinformed regarding the history of criticism of presedents. Going back to Washington, the occupier of the White House has been subjected to degrading names, criticism, and disrespect.

There was never a time when the office of the presidency was so esteemed the pres. was beyond criticism, even to the point of mockery and derision. Your claim is simply a historical stereotype based on misinformation.

Read the post a lil' more carefully. I specifically said you don't have to believe everything the President says (4th or 5th sentence).
It's one thing to disagree and to debate but it's another when you're being downright distasteful. I believe (could be wrong) the man has been called a dog or an idiot by a particular high ranking elected official. I also never stated that the Presidency has never endured criticism in the past just that there was a time when the office was esteemed and revered.

It seems now a days people just don't weigh what it takes to do their job; the sacrifices and heavy decisions. All the while having some people only berating you because their jockeying for position with no sincere desire for working towards our nations well being regardless of party affiliation. Which I must add is childish when you ponder it all. The fact that they are the Presidents of our U.S.A. should alone garner at least respect for the office they hold. Take a look at the before and after pictures of Presidents Bush and Clinton for example; these men must have aged 20yrs physically in just 8yrs. You can disagree yes and yet if there is any tact and maturity one can still respect. Simple maybe... if so why can't we understand the importance of it?

 

[RebSaint]

I also never stated that the Presidency has never endured criticism in the past just that there was a time when the office was esteemed and revered.

The office has ALWAYS been esteemed and revered, because men like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln held the office.

And political criticism has always been from many perspectives--distasteful, mean, and disrespectful.

For example, many claim that Bush is either an idiot or simply not articulate. Many think it's a compliment, and others say it's mean and disrepectful.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Didn't some Senator call Thomas Jeffersons mother a whore?

 

[DadsDream]

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.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

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.

Thanks, I knew I remember hearing some President had someone close to them called a whore.

 

[tak]

The office has ALWAYS been esteemed and revered, because men like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln held the office.

And political criticism has always been from many perspectives--distasteful, mean, and disrespectful.

For example, many claim that Bush is either an idiot or simply not articulate. Many think it's a compliment, and others say it's mean and disrepectful.

I disagree with "ALWAYS" nontheless the point has been missed that regardless of who holds the office there ought to be some degree of reverance given. If the definition of reverance is to call someone of their position a dog or idiot... well there are much deeper issues to discuss then.

 

[RebSaint]

I disagree with "ALWAYS" nontheless the point has been missed that regardless of who holds the office there ought to be some degree of reverance given. If the definition of reverance is to call someone of their position a dog or idiot... well there are much deeper issues to discuss then.

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.