Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama of behaving like his White House predecessor and called on him to apologize for what he called U.S. interference following Iran's elections."
This is more proof that Obama's initial muted response was perfect. This nut was hoping for a response so he would have grounds to state the above. Now, he looks even more like a boob with Obama only responding once people started being killed.
I'm very curious to see how the Obama-bashers will spin this. They spent days bashing him for his lack of a response but now that said response has been proven effective, what will they say? I shall wait.
As though he were not a weak-minded morally-flaccid do-nothing reluctantly bending with the political currents because he genuinely has no personal convictions to guide him. He is a vote getter from the most corrupt political machine in the US. He has succeeded in doing what he does. But now that he is in office, he'll either follow Bush's policies or do nothing because, unlike his followers, he realizes he has no Earthly idea what he's doing.
Those of us who were not in a coma will remember how he congradulated himself in advance for the outcome of the Iranian election.
Conservatives around here are very quick to point out the limits of Federal power enunciated in the Constitution, so would you be kind enough to point out this Obligation? It seems to me that the President's ONLY obligation is to preserve and protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. If that means ignoring the internal policies of another country if it advances the long term security interests of the U.S. I would think that this obligation far outweighs any imaginary ones.
And, while you are at it, would you mind explaining why this obligation is so selectively applied? For example, I haven't heard anyone asking, much less demanding some overt statement on the part of the President regarding human rights in Saudi Arabia or perhaps Turkmenistan?
The Constitution does not explicitly state MANY things. Our whole country is based off of precedent. Do I really have to explain that to you? Bringing in the Constitution as ammuntion is really pretty weak ovcatto, and I think you know that. Foreign policy is not a Constitutional matter. You will be hard pressed to come up with anything related to dealing with foreign nations that is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. I'm baffled that you would even assert that.
Furthermore, are you not familiar with the State Departments annual report on human rights? We critique human rights abuses all the time. I'm a little amazed that such small things need to be pointed out to you. Just because Keith Olbermann didn't point it out to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
So, you're going on record to say that the United States is not the shining example of free elections? I ask you: how many people were killed by our government for protesting the results? I await your answer.
I'm going on record to say that the U.S. is far from being a shining example of pretty much anything. I think that the U.S. has had great moments, and has done many great things, but by the same token (for the record) it has done great evil.
Between 1860 and 1865, some 618, 000 died protesting an election. But even more to the point, over the coarse of the nations history, there have been scores killed protesting all sorts of issues pertaining to government policy, wrongly or rightly (depending on one's politics) but the fact remains those folks are still dead as a result of public protest.
But having said that, I think that their is one area where the U.S. has outshone the rest of the world, the ability of the U.S. military to sublimate itself to civilian authority. That is a uniquely American experience.
I'm going on record to say that the U.S. is far from being a shining example of pretty much anything. I think that the U.S. has had great moments, and has done many great things, but by the same token (for the record) it has done great evil.
Between 1860 and 1865, some 618, 000 died protesting an election. But even more to the point, over the coarse of the nations history, there have been scores killed protesting all sorts of issues pertaining to government policy, wrongly or rightly (depending on one's politics) but the fact remains those folks are still dead as a result of public protest.
But having said that, I think that their is one area where the U.S. has outshone the rest of the world, the ability of the U.S. military to sublimate itself to civilian authority. That is a uniquely American experience.
More to the point? Great way to deflect your own assertion that 618,000 died over an "election." I highly doubt you will find a historian anywhere that will agree that the "election" is the reason 600K people died in the Civil War. You're embarassing yourself.
The Constitution does not explicitly state MANY things. Our whole country is based off of precedent.
So, can take this as your recognition of the implied powers vested in the Federal government? Good. Let's move on.
Quote:
Bringing in the Constitution as ammuntion is really pretty weak ovcatto, and I think you know that.
When it comes to stating in bold capitalized letters what you contend to be an obligation, I can't think of a better source than the Constitution.
Quote:
Furthermore, are you not familiar with the State Departments annual report on human rights? We critique human rights abuses all the time.
Then the annual report should be sufficient base upon the above argument.
Quote:
Just because Keith Olbermann didn't point it out to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Oh, spare me the ad hominum arguments and instead address the issue; does the President's sworn obligations trump this imaginary one, i.e., securing the long term security of the nation vs, a feel good proclamation which is tantamount to pissing into the wind?
So, can take this as your recognition of the implied powers vested in the Federal government? Good. Let's move on.
When it comes to stating in bold capitalized letters what you contend to be an obligation, I can't think of a better source than the Constitution.
Then the annual report should be sufficient base upon the above argument.
Oh, spare me the ad hominum arguments and instead address the issue; does the President's sworn obligations trump this imaginary one, i.e., securing the long term security of the nation vs, a feel good proclamation which is tantamount to pissing into the wind?
I'm at at total loss of words over this philosophy that you brought to this discussion. You are explicity implying that the United States of America has no obligation to this world simply because the Consitution does not say so. You my friend, are very narrow minded. If that were the case, then that means you disagree with our involvement in every world war to ever take place. I'm embarrassed for you. It's mind boggling to think that you hold such ludicrosity in your brain. All because the Consitution didn't say so.
More to the point? Great way to deflect your own assertion that 618,000 died over an "election." I highly doubt you will find a historian anywhere that will agree that the "election" is the reason 600K people died in the Civil War. You're embarassing yourself.
Really... I don't think that you could find a historian that would argue that without the election of Lincoln and the ascendancy of the Republican Party that there would have been a war if you life depended upon it.
Your argument implies that the elections are devoid of policies and that the policies of Lincoln or the Republican Party had nothing to do with the Civil War. Now whether you take the revisionist stand that the war was over state's rights or the commonly accepted argument that the war was over the issue of slavery, either way, war broke out as a result of policy, not Lincoln's good looks or lack thereof. So, yes indeed the Civil War was the result of a protest over which policy one the election.
I'm at at total loss of words over this philosophy that you brought to this discussion. You are explicity implying that the United States of America has no obligation to this world simply because the Consitution does not say so.
No, I just want to have you on the record regarding implied powers.
Really... I don't think that you could find a historian that would argue that without the election of Lincoln and the ascendancy of the Republican Party that there would have been a war if you life depended upon it.
Your argument implies that the elections are devoid of policies and that the policies of Lincoln or the Republican Party had nothing to do with the Civil War. Now whether you take the revisionist stand that the war was over state's rights or the commonly accepted argument that the war was over the issue of slavery, either way, war broke out as a result of policy, not Lincoln's good looks or lack thereof. So, yes indeed the Civil War was the result of a protest over which policy one the election.
You're still hanging on to the fact the Civil War was over an "election" and that all those men were killed because of an "election?"
LOL keep up the good work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
