| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
The First Bed |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
If you knew how Mary Todd Lincoln was, what her husband had to deal with, would you elect him President today? Can a married man known to have a mistress still be accepted as a presidential candidate? If you knew JFK had women brought to him in the White House would you, (had he lived), have re-elected him? |
||
| © Copyright 2006 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
smile Are you an attorney? Just wondering, 'cause I have heard that attorneys never ask questions of which they already know the answer.  |
||
|
Professor Gloom Member Elite
since 2000-07-23
Posts 3082of Depression |
If you knew someone was slinging mud Just to sling mud at a certain person And not at everyone Would you think them fair and unbiased? Does the character matter over the policy, Not for all but just for some, Would you think they have an agenda? If affiliation matters more than content Is that just politics as usual? Aren’t questions wonderful if phrased like this? Gloom |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
The questions came after reading "Lincoln's Ladies". What happened to Lincoln is a matter of history. One can't help but wonder how much he was distracted from his responsibilities by a wife who threw hysterical fits in her often sucessful efforts to win appointments for her favorites, struck him in the face, and one time delayed his meeting with Grant by holding his pants hostage. The wife and mistress situation was true of a French president, (they stood side by side at his funeral). And everyone knows now about Kennedy. If you read history you are saddened by how often it is badly made because of a leader's personal situations. There are some positions involving the power of life and death that should be free of soap opera. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I don't know about the Lincoln situation but I was around when Kennedy came into power. We heard nothing about his womanizing at the time..unlike Clinton. I blame it all on the press...if they had told what they knew (and I'm sure they found out) then the public would have known. |
||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
I know nothing about the rest, but on Mary Todd Lincoln... Just because you read one writers opinion does not make that way of life. I have read a few books on Mrs.Lincoln and all differ from the other. Some people say she was a brilliant and beautiful lady, and others say that she was a manipulator, most agree with the former though. What i'm trying to say is please read more than one book before you form an opinion like this. If i am speaking out of turn or reading more into this post than i should, i apologize. @-->--- |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
years ago, a man's credibility as far as fildelity went a long way. Years ago, people had a saying, if a man cheats on his wife, he would then lie about other things...therefore, during those times, if people knew Kennedy and even before, Lincoln were cheating on their wives, I don't think they would have been as widely popular and perhaps not voted into office? Today...it's a different world...but, I still hold fast b/c I believe there are men who would not think of cheating on their wives...and to me, it would be nice...to have these men for leaders...but, doesn't say, they'd do as good of a job in their position....just says that if a man/woman is committed to holding close respect for themselves, then, they will respect me, and the people they are working for. Does character mean something in politics...in my book, yes....but in today's world, it's a different story. Seems as if more people are tolerant of these types of issues and deem the act as acceptable? Is it write or wrong? I can't say...but will say, that for me...I believe a man who is true to himself, is confident in who he is...which means he will also be true to every other aspect of his life...he probaly realizes the effects his decissions will have on the whole, rather then act selfishly on his own individual self? Take for instance, Mr. William Jefferson Clinton...I think he did a great job of getting the US out of debt. When he left office, we had a zero debt. Also, the man was a Rhoades Scholar...which is a very admirable acheivment, not to mention, difficult. He was a genious, a very intellectual man...and yet, did his private life effect his position as President of the US? Whose is to say/or judge? The man definately had his problems...like us all, strong in some areas, weak in others... Me personally, I would rather not know a person's privet life, as long as he was funtioning well at his position...and his privet life not having an effect on his job... I don't buy into gossip or like it... Now if I were going to marry the man, I know I'd feel totally different Perhaps this is a hypocratical answer, if a man is true to himself, he will be true to me...and maybe more truer to his people, career, etc...which might serve a trickle down effect? But that is simply my feelings on the subject. |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
FDR was known to have his... indescretions... as did Eleanor Roosevelt. Did that make either of them less fit for the job in which they were put? Would Roosevelt have been a better president if both parties involved had kept their pants on? Would he have not used the FBI to keep taps on his Congressional opponents had he been faithful to his wife? Did President Clinton do any less of a job of being president as an adulterer than if he had remained faithful to the nuptual couch? Did the economy grow any less bacause of his infidelity? Would he have been anything but a spineless (in my opinion) and worthless Commander-In-Chief if he had not indulged in a few cigars? Winston Churchill was a blazing drunk. Did that make him any less of an effective leader? Richard Nixon was a paranoid, and not exactly the niecest person to work for. Would he have been able to open the roads to Chiny any faster if he were a total sweetheart? Had he been a more agreeable president, would he have been any less inclined to attempt to reform Welfare, even in the 70's? How about being the first President to visit Russia, Romania, and Poland? How about starting the first war on cancer? Ronald Reagan was battling cancer, was hard of hearing, and was suffering (we know now) from the beginning of Alzheimer's. Did that prevent him from stopping Communism in its tracks? The very simple fact is, ALL of these men had various things that should have prevented them from becoming president, or remaining president for a second term... however, they all did, and history has judged them all to have been effective presidents in their own capacity... and yet they all had their own scandals to deal with that should have (in today's world) gotten them knocked off the ballot. Depending on what survey you listen to, somwhere between 50% and 75% of American men step outside the bonds of holy matrimony at least once during their marriage. And yet we demand that the president of the American people be absoloutely nothing like them. They are not allowed to have the same thoughs, emotions, or actions. If President (pick one) was discovered by the press to have stayed in the Residence on New Years Eve and to have gotten so completely drunk that he didn't remember his name, much less where he was living, would we, as Americans, demand that he resign from office even though the majority of Americans had done the exact same thing publicly? If we discover that President (pick one) was a recovering drug addict (with 25 years clean), would we scream for his head on a platter because he didn't tell us that he did something stupid as a young man? (wrong again... we did it to, then, candidate Bush with his cocaine use). My point is: Why should we deny a capable man of serving his country in its highest office just because he is like us? Was Lincoln the only man in America to have ever been hit by his wife? Were Presidents Clinton, Kennedy, and Roosevelt the only men in America to have know the touch of another woman? (Hell, they weren't even the only Presidents to have done so.) The country needs to stop having a double standard for itself and allow the government to stop hiring public relations firms to make the country realize that if they were President, and were given the same opportunities, they would be fornicating with every intern they could find.
|
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
Did any of you know that Lincoln was also a slave owner? Did that also effect his job of leader of the United States...or did he truely lead? Or was he advised? Are most of our Presidents advised? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
"Did any of you know that Lincoln was also a slave owner?" That's false. His wife's family however did and in fact some of her relatives fought and suffered losses for the South. Ringo, to your examples I would ask had they not been unfaithful, or alcoholic, would they have been better leaders especially in time of war, would fewer men have died, (Reagan and cancer I don’t see in the same light unless you’re saying the pain could have distracted or pre-occupied, like Wilson, him in office). Additionally, the position demands an extraordinary person; we are talking about someone who has the authority to begin a process that could eliminate all life from the planet. Would you want someone who was suicidal President? Would you want someone, (as potentially in Iran), ready to die for his God with authority to push the button? |
||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
And what is wrong with being ready to die for your God? Just because you are willing to die for something you believe in does NOT make you suicidal. At least you believe in something, and your not a mindless idiot (yes, mindless idiot!) who believes in nothing at all. Millions of people have been willing to die for their cause, millions have died for their cause. Does this make their deaths for nothing?Just because you are willing to die for something does not mean that because you are in power you will destroy the rest of humanity. President Bush believes in God, and to God life is precious, do you not believe he would consider carefully before pressing that button? Does it make him a terrible president to believe in something? @-->--- |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
To answer your question -- I wouldn't have voted for him because I was not eligible to vote....lol! With Clinton, it wasn't so much the affair that bothered me as it was that it was with an "intern!" Important word there...intern....college aged....while she was on the job. I suspect all straight men in power have some type of harem, and the exception would be a rarity. |
||
|
stargal Senior Member
since 2006-03-06
Posts 1352OR USA |
iliana Just because some men mess up it does not mean every male in power has a harem. As incredible as it may seem not everyone thinks with their pants down. I just made a point how everyone is not perfect, i stand by that, but it doesn't mean that everyone has the same defects. There are many great men in history that have no such scandals as affairs surounding them. It also bothers me that Clinton had an affair was with an "intern", but she was also old enough to make up her own mind. I hope i am not speaking out of turn by saying this. @-->--- |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
quote: I must ask your forgiveness if my brain had failed me yet again; however, didn't I read somewhere that you were a member of the Nation's Finest? As such, you should know that the president has absolutely nothing to do with how many people die on a battlefield. That number depends more on the leadership on site as to how the troops are deployed and who goes where. To more completely answer your question (and to back up my reply): President Franklin Roosevelt was keeping a mistress during WWII and was dealing with the economy left to him by Hoover, and while fighting a war on 2 fronts we lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 290-300 thousand troops in 4 1/2 years. That comes out to just over 65,000 dead per year. And we stuck with it regardless of the consequences. President Eisenhower had no mistress and had just over 84,000 casualties per year. And we were there until it was over. Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Ford had no mistresses either, yet we lost an average of only about 5,000 per year in Vietnam. And we were so mismanaged, that we finally left without sucessfully winning after 10 years. President Clinton had a mistress, and had 44 dead on one day, and we yanked the troops out of tehre as fast as possible, even though the ratio had been 44 Americans, and up to 1500 Somali dead. Quite Simply... the American President and his personal life have nothing to do with how many American (or British, or Japanese, or Somali) dead there are.
|
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ringo, the President has everything to do with how many people die on a battlefield. Who do you think decides whether there is even going to be a battlefield? Who, I wonder, ultimately selects those leaders to be on site? "The buck stops here," was more than just a catchy slogan. It was realization of what leadership should really mean. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: What is this? |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ringo, you left out, G.H.W.B.....maybe you know the truth about him, hmmm? And as to the others....how do you know for a fact? |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
I know about the others because I had a history teacher who demanded that we know all of the facts about things, and not just what the popular story was. The facts I presented shouldn't be too hard to find online if you look. As for the Eisenhower quote... I misspoke myself... I obviously meant Truman and the Korean War... and I offer no excuses as to why I screwed it up.
|
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
lol, Ringo. Texas holds many, many secrets, Ringo....just like much of history.  And so does every place else. |
||
|
iliana Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434USA |
Ringo, it appears you might be wrong about Eisenhower. Read, Pre sidential Mistresses and http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~farley/humor/sex/eisenhower.html [This message has been edited by Alicat (03-22-2006 09:07 AM).] |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
I actually meant Truman, instead of Ike... however, it doesn't surprise me he had one... I've always been told there was just something about us men in uniform. lol Although, it was interesting to read about the law disallowing the looking into the President's personal life. I wonder why President Clinton (whom I was no fan of) didn't invoke it?
|
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
{"The buck stops here," was more than just a catchy slogan. It was realization of what leadership should really mean.} I agree with this statement completely, but would like to add two things: one, our leaders are never perfect - they are human; it is easy to be perfect and much more difficult to be human; two, Ron's statement perhaps illuminates one of the reasons personality characteristics can become distorted in the pressure cooker of leadership. Churchill is a good example. He not only would put away a huge amount of champagne, whisky and brandy during WWII, he also had a serious opium habit in the form of laudanum (learned from his parents) and also was a big fan of nitrous oxide. Why? Because of a weakness of character? Personally, I think not. From his writings, it seems clear that he wore the mantle of his leadership decisions in every conscious moment. It was a heavy burden and he needed temporary relief in order to continue to make the same level of life and death decisions throughout the war. So, every afternoon he took his little "nap" and recharged, often relying on amphetamines to "clear his mind." I do not think he should be admired for his choices in coping, but he was not derelict in his duty. There are reasons why our world leaders, those in significant leadership roles (whether or not you agree with them politically) seem all to suffer accelerated aging in some form. |
||
|
LeeJ Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296 |
sometimes a leader must be capable of making unpopular decissions, quickly and to the best of their ability, for instance in times of war. Would I prefer a leader who is also morally mature, yes, why? Because I believe if his characture is that strong, he is able to grasp the ripple effect of how his actions/decissions will effect so many other people, not just himself, therefore working for the people, to the best of his ability. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Churchill had some bulldog notions of beating the Germans through the backdoor in both wars most of which didn’t work very well. There was also a constant strain on the Alliance as he backed his General Montgomery, (something that Eisenhower had to deal with, much to the criticism of his own generals). Yes, the wars were won but how well is another question. I don’t know how someone constantly impaired to the point he wouldn’t be trusted to drive could still be relied on to at least cost run a nation in war. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
