So who's part of the 29%? (1 Viewer)

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It might work, but of course the problem is that it would violate the First Amendment. Political speech is particularly protected for obvious reasons.

I don't agree that campaign contributions is protected speech, and I don't think giving perks to politicians from lobbyists is protected either. I disagree that money = speech. People can voice their support all they want... just eliminate people giving money to politicians.

 

[champ76]

If he picked the people he's surrounded with, and they've been incompetent, then who's fault is that?

It's his and that is why he's where he is in the polls.

But don't get me wrong. I think his administration has done some things(maybe the most important things) right in the second term. There has not been a terror attack on US soil in six years. That is no accident. And the economy continues to hum along. But other aspects have not been so good, and that is why his numbers are low.

 

[UptownShark]

IMO, he earned respect by being elected to the Office of the Presidency. Twice. You and I may have not voted for him but a majority of Americans did and he is the leader of our country.

Let's get one thing straight. He did not receive the majority of the votes in 2000. He was given the majority of electoral votes. And that, of course, was thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Any respect he should have been given was there at the beginning of his first term. He subsequently found ways to lose that respect by disrespecting his countrymen with manipulation of truth, enriching corporations by weakening environmental regulations, crushing our constitutional freedoms and erasing the barriers that keep religion out of government. Once you turn your back on the people you've sworn to serve, you don't deserve ANY respect.

 

[RebSaint]

children learn how to be disrespectful from their parents

Well I guess it's all how one defines "respect." I respect the office, and if I ever by chance met the president, I would give him the respect he deserves. However, with respect comes trust, accountability, competence, etc. I frankly don't think this administration has exhibited much of any of those qualities. Like I said earlier, I don't think it's fair to exaggerate by claiming the "worst in history," or even the "worst in my lifetime"

If you mean "respect" in the context of not making jokes surrounding his incompetency and failures, I disagree. Every president has been lampooned, made fun of, mocked, etc. It's part of American political culture and it's really nothing new to the American political discourse. Even when presidents have been popular, there will always be pundits who poke fun, mock, and make jokes about what they think is a failure or weakness of the chief executive.

 

[Saint Anthony]

Let's get one thing straight. He did not receive the majority of the votes in 2000. He was given the majority of electoral votes. And that, of course, was thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Any respect he should have been given was there at the beginning of his first term. He subsequently found ways to lose that respect by disrespecting his countrymen with manipulation of truth, enriching corporations by weakening environmental regulations, crushing our constitutional freedoms and erasing the barriers that keep religion out of government. Once you turn your back on the people you've sworn to serve, you don't deserve ANY respect.

Was President Bush the only politician who voted to go to war? Do you hold members of Congress to your same standard of getting respect? Clinton voted for war, she has stock with Wal-Mart, Big Pharma, and oil companies. Her husband said they had weapons along with the intelligence community. Get that straight.

 

[Saint Anthony]

Well I guess it's all how one defines "respect." I respect the office, and if I ever by chance met the president, I would give him the respect he deserves. However, with respect comes trust, accountability, competence, etc. I frankly don't think this administration has exhibited much of any of those qualities. Like I said earlier, I don't think it's fair to exaggerate by claiming the "worst in history," or even the "worst in my lifetime"

If you mean "respect" in the context of not making jokes surrounding his incompetency and failures, I disagree. Every president has been lampooned, made fun of, mocked, etc. It's part of American political culture and it's really nothing new to the American political discourse. Even when presidents have been popular, there will always be pundits who poke fun, mock, and make jokes about what they think is a failure or weakness of the chief executive.

Good point. I think joking is fine, its not what I was talking about in terms of respect. I am talking about disagreeing vs disrespecting.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Good point. I think joking is fine, its not what I was talking about in terms of respect. I am talking about disagreeing vs disrespecting.

- I'm sorry, but I have to agree with those who are saying that GWB does not deserve respect. He has made a mockery of the office of the Presidency in more ways than I can count- so IMO he has squandered any respect that one would normally give to the office itself...

 

[Taurus]

children learn how to be disrespectful from their parents

Yeah, my kids call him "Chimpy" too. Oddly enough, they respect those of their elders who deserve it. (Teachers, their mom and I, other parents, etc.)

Shrubby had his chances, the nation was divided by the way he entered office, but he could've worked to heal that rift. Instead, he deliberately widened it.

 

[SaintsFan11]

You're right, and I intended to add that, but I had to go to work! Who else would be able to leave their family/business/farm etc. but the wealthy?

No system of government is perfect, but ours certainly could use some modification. We can start with one and done for term limits.

While I agree that we need a return to the ideals of civic republicanism, I don't necessarily think term limits are the answer. If I tend to be self-serving in my service in Congress, and all of the sudden I'm term limited and no longer have the ability to face the voters I'm going to go wild with self-indulgence.

Slapping term limits on politicians does nothing to remedy the fact that it's the voters who send worthless incumbents back time and time again. Our politicians are doing what they can get away with. If there is a problem, it lies with the voters. All of the money in the world doesn't buy a seat in Congress. It just buys a better campaign than the other guy, which is enough to persuade the voters who don't pay enough attention to get past the glitz. As much as America harps on individual responsibility, it seems we'd rather point the finger at our elected officials (onus on the word elected), than at the people electing them time and time again.

 

[Saint Anthony]

- I'm sorry, but I have to agree with those who are saying that GWB does not deserve respect. He has made a mockery of the office of the Presidency in more ways than I can count- so IMO he has squandered any respect that one would normally give to the office itself...

And Clinton didn't make the office a mockery? He lied under oath and got (mod edit ****) from interns while in the Oval Office. I just want to make sure that when you say Bush made a mockery of the office and doesn't deserve your respect, you are applying the same standards to other Presidents before him.

 

[Taurus]

Aye, Clinton also demeaned the office, but for my part I'm not so down on him because his mistakes didn't have to do with being incompetent. Just a pantyhound.

 

[saintmdterps]

While I agree that we need a return to the ideals of civic republicanism, I don't necessarily think term limits are the answer. If I tend to be self-serving in my service in Congress, and all of the sudden I'm term limited and no longer have the ability to face the voters I'm going to go wild with self-indulgence.

Slapping term limits on politicians does nothing to remedy the fact that it's the voters who send worthless incumbents back time and time again. Our politicians are doing what they can get away with. If there is a problem, it lies with the voters. All of the money in the world doesn't buy a seat in Congress. It just buys a better campaign than the other guy, which is enough to persuade the voters who don't pay enough attention to get past the glitz. As much as America harps on individual responsibility, it seems we'd rather point the finger at our elected officials (onus on the word elected), than at the people electing them time and time again.

good point. I don't know the answer, but I agree with you about voters. After voting for Nader, I heard the comment from one man "Well, I would have voted for him, but I didn't think he'd win." Now THERES someone who should lose his voter registration card!

All I do know is that I feel very let down by politicians on all levels. they say what they with very few exceptions need to say to get elected, then do what they have to to get re-elected as opposed to trying to effect any meaningful change.

Regarding bush and Christianity, he has stated on many occasions he is a Christian. I am just asking how his lack of empathy for his fellow human beings demonstrates his Christianity? Lets face facts, the man is not terriically bright. Well-educated, probably, but not intelligent like Carter (MS in Nuclear Phyics from the Naval Academy) and totally devoid of Carter's compassion for his fellow americans. Carter, I believe, is also a Christian and is certainly a much better representative of the faith than Bush.

I stand by my earlier post. History will not and should not be kind to him. He has failed Americans, except the wealthiest 2-3 percent, on every level and his polls refect this. He stands a good chance of winning the booby prize for worst president ever.

That being said, he was democratically elected, at least we think so.

 

[gumbeau]

Aye, Clinton also demeaned the office, but for my part I'm not so down on him because his mistakes didn't have to do with being incompetent. Just a pantyhound.

An individual's attitude towards a sitting president is much more indicative of the individual than the president.

Presidents cannot be judged in the moment. Presidents are privy to a whirlwind of information that influence their every waking moment.

It is impossible to accurately judge a sitting president, especially through the prism of an agenda driven media (as all media is now)

So teaching your children to despise a sitting president or teaching your children to glorify a sitting president is dangerous and only indicates a lack of understanding of the lessons of history.

 

[saintmdterps]

An individual's attitude towards a sitting president is much more indicative of the individual than the president.

Presidents cannot be judged in the moment. Presidents are privy to a whirlwind of information that influence their every waking moment.

It is impossible to accurately judge a sitting president, especially through the prism of an agenda driven media (as all media is now)

So teaching your children to despise a sitting president or teaching your children to glorify a sitting president is dangerous and only indicates a lack of understanding of the lessons of history.

I beg to differ, Gumbeau. We elect 'em (allegedly), we can judge and criticize their actions. Supposedly elected officials serve those who elect them. Yes in some cases, history may bear out that we were overly harsh in the moment, but I don't think that willl be the case with Bush

 

[DadsDream]

I beg to differ, Gumbeau. We elect 'em (allegedly), we can judge and criticize their actions. Supposedly elected officials serve those who elect them. Yes in some cases, history may bear out that we were overly harsh in the moment, but I don't think that willl be the case with Bush

Saintmdterps, we've had this discussion frequently in the past year, particularly in relation to the "Worst President Ever" tag, which you'll recall was a MoveOn.org slogan and bumpersticker for the 2004 election.

As Gumbeau pointed out, there's so much we do not know at this point that it's most definitely wrong to draw valid conclusions at this point.

For a few samples, we don't have to look very far.

FDR had polio and couldn't walk without assistance, but any cameraman taking a picture of FDR in his wheelchair quickly got his camera (and his arm) broken by the Secret Service. It was long after his death before pictures emerged of him being carried around, loaded and unloaded from cars and trains. The American public that voted for him didn't have a clue at the time.

The press corps was well-aware of JFK's dalliances with Marilyn Monroe in the White House, but he was dead for 20 years before that information saw the light of day.

We are still in the process of declassifying the deaths of Air Force crews that were shot down spying on Russia in the 1950s and 1960s. That only happened after evidence began emerging in Russia that they captured some of those men and they eventually died in prison in Siberia.

Lyndon Johnson created the Tonkin Gulf Incident which led to a 98-2 Senate vote to authorize the use of force in Vietnam. It would be 30 years before the information was declassified to reveal that the entire incident was a CIA operation.

Why wouldn't we declassify all the documents on 9/11? Well, to answer that, we'd have to know what operations were being run from offices in the World Trade Center, wouldn't we?

If the operations are still classified, the locations of those offices are still classified and so are the documents relating to 9/11 that refer to those offices and even the names of the people who worked in them.

Did you know that there are certain military courses which issue you a new Social Security Number when you graduate?