No respect for the office??? This is a club that has been used to beat me over the head on another forum.

In a discussion about the President of the United States, I stated that I have absolutely NO respect for (King George, GW, Georgie Porgie, that Dunce in the Whitehouse, Bush Baby, Bush Jr, etc, etc, etc).

I made a statement that "Bush has done so many things that harm the US that my respect for the office itself has been damaged. I will begin to respect the Office of the President again when someone worthy of being President of the United States is elected and NOT UNTIL THEN".

You would think that I had just committed treason ... the Bushites went after me in full cry ... no thought of debating Bush's job since he assumed the office ... no discussion about the fact that (unlike predecessors) he hasn't seemed to grow with the office ... no debate about his childish 'my way or else' attitude (childish tantrum) ... JUST INVECTIVES AND ACCUSATIONS.

There used to be a time that the Office of the President was held in respect even when the President of the United States had fallen out of favor.

My question is as follows:

HAS BUSH BECOME SO IDENTIFIED WITH THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF???

MOST FOREIGN LEADERS AND CIVILIANS DON'T MAKE THAT DISTINCTION ANYMORE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.

THE OFFICE IS THE PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT IS THE OFFICE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK AND WHY?

You can compare president's past, present and future to each other. The "office" is a job like any other, albeit a much bigger, harder toghher etc job than most.

It would be very unfair to even partially condemn future president's actions by past or present presidents just because they run the country. By condemining the office of the president itself you seem to be doing so. Perhaps that is what they meant. Not sure if it makes sense.

It is like saying all dogs are and will be bad based on the behavior of one dog.

I agree with our Jarhead here. The Office of the President goes back far longer than the current POTUS has even been alive, and hopefully it will last far longer than his lifetime. No one man can represent it permanently, the Office is bigger than him and represents far more than just his personal politics.

I grew up with the notion that respect is earned not freely given. For me to say I respect "office" is giving respect without knowing to whom you give it.
If somebody is worthy of my respect he'll get it. So I can't condemn future presidents without knowing who it is. So it's the person not the office that is given respect.

Originally Posted by Ted

I grew up with the notion that respect is earned not freely given. For me to say I respect "office" is giving respect without knowing to whom you give it.
If somebody is worthy of my respect he'll get it. So I can't condemn future presidents without knowing who it is. So it's the person not the office that is given respect.

I guess this was what I was really trying to say ... I have no respect for the present holder of the title so I have no respect for the office at this time.

When someone is in the office worthy of respect ... both the person and the office will again get my respect.

I'll always respect the office, the holder, we've had better. But we've also had worse, that's why I don't get too worked up over who's in presently. One remark President Reagan made to a cabinet member sticks with me. When they were walking into the oval office, President Reagan put his coat back on and tightened his tie. The staff member said (para.) Mr. President, it's pretty hot and we will be the only ones in the meeting, you don't have to put your coat back on. President Reagan answered that he would never enter this (oval) office with anything less than the utmost respect. It's hard to make a judgement of giving or receiving respect without being there in their place, so I'll abstain on this issue and err on the side of giving respect to the office because the President is still elected by the people, thank God.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

I guess this was what I was really trying to say ... I have no respect for the present holder of the title so I have no respect for the office at this time.

When someone is in the office worthy of respect ... both the person and the office will again get my respect.

Originally Posted by Ted

I grew up with the notion that respect is earned not freely given. For me to say I respect "office" is giving respect without knowing to whom you give it.
If somebody is worthy of my respect he'll get it. So I can't condemn future presidents without knowing who it is. So it's the person not the office that is given respect.

Chief, I have a feeling you will be waiting a long time, the person you may respect may be in my eyes a total moron and vice versa. You may have considered Clinton to be worthy of respect etc. I felt he was a womanizer and had low morals and values thus he did not deserve my respect. Does that mean I disrespect the office and rank he held? No it does not.

Ted, I am not sure what country you hail from. I do not know what background or culture you come from. But the below is a response to both you and Chief as I think it applies:

Opinions aside. The current holder of the title of President of the United States of America may not be a man you feel you can respect. But the office of President of the United States of America should, and in my opinion must, always be respected.

If our own citizens demean and state the person that holds that title is not deserving of respect, then that stigma may, probably will, carry over time and again and soon any person that takes office will be under that shadow. Now take this to the world view of the US. How can anyone take the President seriously if his own county doesn't? Hard to try to say what I feel but I think you can get the picture.

Respecting the rank (in this case office) does not mean you have to, or do, respect the man. It seems to me that being military you would have long since learned to differentiate between the two.

First it was my age, now it's my heritage

Alright and now seriously. I have thought about this respect thing for a while and I came to this conclusion.
I have two kinds of respect. The first is the one I judge people by. I run the risk of being biased, generalizing and sometimes plain wrong in this judgement. But I always give people the opportunity to prove me wrong! People who do this earn my respect. Some have to work harder then other, but in general anybody can earn my respect.
The second kind in for tradition and institutions. I'll bite my tongue during many ceremonies. I think some of them are odd, but out of respect I'll just shut it. Other ceremonies, like visiting memorial day or commemorations of battles recieve nothing but my utmost respect.
What I am trying to say is that you can't compare one to the other. What I think of Bush as a person and what I think of the President of the United States are two different things to me.

Well I have the utmost respect for the Office of the President, and absolutely none for man currently inside of it.

MarineRhodes brought up a point. He said he didnt like the fact that Clinton was a womanizer. (I would quickly point out that Kennedy, FDR, Ike, and many others had mistresses. And yet they are considered amongst the 'greats').

But back to my question. How can somebody respect the office of president when the current President doesnt even respect it himself?

For example, Bush has a extreme disregard for the office of President, he prefers to see that Presidency as a Absolute Monarchy (or even dictatorship). The President has no repect for Congress (wiretapping), no respect for the Constitution (torture, wiretapping, privacy) and not much respect for the American people. Worse, he feels is absolutely accountable to nobody.

Some people may dislike Clinton as a person. Some may dislike his political ideology. I dont agree but thats fine. But one thing we can say about Clinton was that he never held the presidency as being above everything else. If he had, there never would have been an impeachment trial.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Well I have the utmost respect for the Office of the President, and absolutely none for man currently inside of it.

MarineRhodes brought up a point. He said he didnt like the fact that Clinton was a womanizer. (I would quickly point out that Kennedy, FDR, Ike, and many others had mistresses. And yet they are considered amongst the 'greats').

But back to my question. How can somebody respect the office of president when the current President doesnt even respect it himself?

For example, Bush has a extreme disregard for the office of President, he prefers to see that Presidency as a Absolute Monarchy (or even dictatorship). The President has no repect for Congress (wiretapping), no respect for the Constitution (torture, wiretapping, privacy) and not much respect for the American people. Worse, he feels is absolutely accountable to nobody.

Some people may dislike Clinton as a person. Some may dislike his political ideology. I dont agree but thats fine. But one thing we can say about Clinton was that he never held the presidency as being above everything else. If he had, there never would have been an impeachment trial.

Not sure but didn't congress have to pass the bill that allowed the president to do the wiretapping? As you can see Senator Pat Roberts was the sponser of the bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:S.1266: All the president had to do was sign it or veto it.

Also, the president does not have the power to deny an impeachment. Read more about that here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepre...mpeachment.htm

I doubt very seriously that the president was aware or condoned torture either.