The Office and the Man

[DanaC]

Oh! *totally distracted from original point* Youtube options on the reply box! Only just spotted that. How marvellous.

Right. Sorry about that. Back to the point, inasmuch as there is one, which in fact there probably isn't. More a question. A slight mulling over.

It occurred to me, that because our Prime Minister is not in fact our head of state; that office, despite our centuries of tradition and ritualised structures, is not sacralized. There is no conflict in our culture between disrespecting the man and respecting the office. We have a monarch, crowned in a sacerdotal ceremony: it is still culturally risque and a little uncomfortable to most Brits if a comedian goes 'too far' in mocking the Queen. She is not considered entirely fair game. You can have a go...but there's a line to be trodden. There really isn't any such cultural line, beyond outright slander, when it comes to the Prime Minister. Protestors will quite happily attempt to douse said Prime Minister in egg or coloured flour if they can get past security.

The President of America, is of course the head of that state. The essence of American Statehood resides in that office.

So, I think what I want to know is: to what extent is it possible to disrespect the man whilst still respecting the office of President?

[Happy Monkey]

99%. The only thing you can't do is threaten harm.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

So, I think what I want to know is: to what extent is it possible to disrespect the man whilst still respecting the office of President?

How ever people treated Bush is the standard. For Obama anything goes. What ever was said and done to Bush or Clinton is the standard. Have at it.

[Shawnee123]

Merc, you might have cared about a blowjob. I cared about getting us into a war that we had nothing to contribute to, except our bravado. This is not a slam on our brave soldiers, this is a slam on us as the only superpower.

Remember the zero deficit? You will point to your guns as the savior of freedom, but most of us know better: that being hated by nations that will easily one day take us over is antiquated and unrealistic. Being vulnerable by selling ourselves to China is not going to fare well.

When will you get on board? When you're in your safe bunker and railing against the awfulness of it all? It won't work in the long run. Two week supplies (and running out of precious bullets) is not enough. Time to try a different tack.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

We'd've cared less about any blowjobs if it'd been Hillary doing them. Some of us would've thought it was cute, great head competing pretty dang well with great anything else. Lying under oath by the fellow at the other end of the penis, well, that makes for impeachment.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Merc, you might have cared about a blowjob. I cared about getting us into a war that we had nothing to contribute to, except our bravado. This is not a slam on our brave soldiers, this is a slam on us as the only superpower.

Now here's one of those anti-human arguments you make, but I don't, which is why I figure I've got a better grasp on keeping the humanity in my thinking than you do. In what wise could it be wrong to overthrow a capital-F Fascist régime, liberating a people or three from totalitarian oppression, and replace it with something far more democratic, and for all our nurturing and encouragement, still at the end of the day planted in its own native soil and home grown? Given their personal druthers, any people will prefer to maintain a large say in governance of their affairs -- they but endure the lack of such a say. They do not flourish generally under it. Nonflourishing, unchangingly so, was the condition of Iraq under the Ba'ath Party. Now there is change. Turmoil also, but who could expect otherwise, particularly in a region where tribal consciousness has never been supplanted by national consciousness?

Remember the zero deficit?

Unless you were born before 1961, you're unlikely to remember those times personally. The last time the Federal budget balanced was 1968, IIRC. Two generations ago.

You will point to your guns as the savior of freedom,

Which have the virtue of working when nothing else does, and of keeping us a democratic republic when nothing else can. Do not dispense with this, nor poormouth others who keep arms even when you do not. Stick to poormouthing actual murderers; much better.

but most of us know better: that being hated by nations that will easily one day take us over is antiquated and unrealistic. Being vulnerable by selling ourselves to China is not going to fare well.

Which has zilch to do with private weaponry and should be in another paragraph. As for "hated," I don't think so. There's been lots of screaming about getting ourselves hated -- but all of it emanates from quarters inhabited by people I wouldn't trust to manage a yoghurt stand -- on the basis of their expressed views. The people I do trust -- they don't say such things.

When will you get on board? When you're in your safe bunker and railing against the awfulness of it all? It won't work in the long run. Two week supplies (and running out of precious bullets) is not enough. Time to try a different tack.

Caricature. At variance with fact, and unworthy of you. If you believe your caricature, you will fall into dumbth. And we'll still be here. Unaffected, in two senses.

Where is the wrong in you getting on board with us? I'm sure you believe it would be, but I'm at a loss to see why. You guys tend not to speak of your philosophy of life, at least not in any well-jointed fashion.

Originally Posted by DanaC

So, I think what I want to know is: to what extent is it possible to disrespect the man whilst still respecting the office of President?

I judge the man based, in large part, on the respect he showed for the office and the Constitution.

Reagan's blatant act of ignoring an act of Congress with his Iran/Contra deal showed disrespect for a co-equal branch of government. His falling asleep on the job and his lack of attention to detail was a more personal rather Constitutional failing.

Among recent presidents, GHW Bush was probably the most respectful of the office in terms of understanding and acting within the limits of the executive branch...perhaps because he was the most experienced.

Clinton's failures and disrespect for the office were at a personal level.

George Bush abused the office. He unilaterally extended and expanded the powers of the presidency with dubious legal justifications....he authorized policies that violated basic Constitutional rights of US citizens...he politicized the DoJ like no president I can recall, turning the agency charged with upholding the law, into a legal arm of the WH to provide legal cover for his actions ...he ignored US legal obligations under international treaties....the list goes on.

Obama...too soon to tell.

[TheMercenary]

Obama will be treated like all the recent presidents before him. With the same level of disdain and mistrust. He represents everything that goes against our Constitution.

[Shawnee123]

At that level, isn't the real responsibility to do what's best for our country? Financially, diplomatically, and putting yourself into the position of most of us: individuals who are just trying to enjoy a bit of peacetime and security?

Someone else mentioned that the federal reserve is really calling the shots. When history looks back I think US, the American people will be appalled at what really made the issues, rather than what was good for US.

It's a sad commentary on the ease of putting "news" out there and the need of the people to be correct, no matter what kinds of jeopardy that means to our children.

Please, think of the children.[/levity]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

At that level, isn't the real responsibility to do what's best for our country?

IMO, the real responsibility is to live up to the oath of office and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.."

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Redux

IMO, the real responsibility is to live up to the oath of office and "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.."

OK, which might be best for our country. Could it be that things change over time? It's only been 233 years. Should we expect change in 8 months?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Should we expect change in 8 months?

Only what was promised.

We shall hold his feet to the fire for those promises.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

OK, which might be best for our country. Could it be that things change over time? It's only been 233 years. Should we expect change in 8 months?

Bush maintained that protecting the nation from terrorist threats, by whatever means necessary, was best for our country, and then determined unilaterally, ignoring the two other co-equal branches of government, that those means he used to do so were within his Constitutional powers.

I cant agree with that and I dont believe that is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind..even in times of a national crisis, real or manufactured.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Redux

Bush maintained that protecting the nation from terrorist threats, by whatever means necessary, was best for our country, and then determined unilaterally, ignoring the two other co-equal branches of government, that those means he used to do so were within his Constitutional powers.

I cant agree with that and I dont believe that is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

I agree.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Bush maintained that protecting the nation from terrorist threats, by whatever means necessary, was best for our country, and then determined unilaterally, ignoring the two other co-equal branches of government, that those means he used to do so were within his Constitutional powers.

I cant agree with that and I dont believe that is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind..even in times of a national crisis, real or manufactured.

This whole statement is comical on so many levels.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

At that level, isn't the real responsibility to do what's best for our country?

Ha ha ha ha,,,,, fuck that. What comes around goes around. I just can't endorse the socialistic practices of Obama.