Respect for the office???

Chief Bones

Forums Grumpy Old Man
:bang: 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".

:whip: 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.

:salute2: 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.

:idea: 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.
 
An illuminating statement............

Ted said:
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.
 
Chief Bones said:
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.

Ted said:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
mmarsh said:
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/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm

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

I could not have said it any better!
 
I wonder what Libs/commies/DemoNrats and leftists had to say about Clinton having sexual relation with his secretary back in the 1990s

:lol:

Libs never cease to amaze us!

BTW, it is awsome how a great president like GWB makes people angry to a point where they are about to die.
 
MarinerRhodes

(Your first link didnt work, 2nd was ok)

No, a few *select* people were informed about it in Congress but there was no official declaration. Thats just the problem, Bush's own lawyers were concerned that this might be unconstitutional thats why it took a whistleblower for it to come to light. I have a real problem with Presidents who know something is illegal, or unconstitutional but who do it anyway.

You missed the point, the president has no offical power to kill impeachment process, but he does have measures to make sure that it never happens in the first place. For example he can block the use of a independent counsel investigation (Bush tried to do it 3 times, but was forced to relent because of public opinion). Another way is to make sure the impeachment charge never gets out of a congressional commitee (president must have cronies in congress for this to work).

You dont think the president didnt know about the torture, than why was Bush so adamently against McCain's anti-torture bill last year? Why did Cheney try and have Congress approve measures that could be described as "cruel, inhuman and degrading" a process that up to now we have cricized other countries of doing. Not only did they know about it, they most likely authorized it.

Phoenix

I'll answer that. A very poor personal decision, not the proper image of a US president. But outside his family, not a big deal. There was no outstanding damage to the country other than the hypocritical 'moral outrage' coming from the far right many of which it turned out later were guilty of exactly the same thing. Its not illegal for the president to have an affair and Clinton was far from the only president to do it. You could even open a bordello in Congress.
 
Last edited:
phoenix80 said:
I wonder what Libs/commies/DemoNrats and leftists had to say about Clinton having sexual relation with his secretary back in the 1990s

:lol:

Libs never cease to amaze us!

BTW, it is awsome how a great president like GWB makes people angry to a point where they are about to die.

Well Phoenix, all I can say is that Clinton looked pretty stupid having to admit his adultry. I don't approve of it and I think many other libs/commies/democrats thought the same about it. But I am glad that we can always amaze you (ps is that Royal plural that you use or who do you mean by "we")
Finally, when talking about respect. I don't think that the capacity to annoy people is a measurement for greatness. I thought that great presidents are remembered by their other actions then that...... but that might just be my European point of view?!
 
Missileer said:
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.

I agree with old M. George isn't all that bad. He made a good call with Afghanistan but should have shown more care with Iraq. He has signed over a huge amount of money to fight AIDS in poor nations. He has my respect as well as the office.
 
I couldn't have said it better.......

mmarsh said:
.................
How can somebody respect the office of president when the current President doesn't 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 respect 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.
I guess the above best describes the reason I no longer respect the Office of the President.

MM - I know you said that you still respect the office ... but ... the portion of your post I included describes my feelings exactly ...
 
mmarsh said:
MarinerRhodes

(Your first link didnt work, 2nd was ok)

No, a few *select* people were informed about it in Congress but there was no official declaration. Thats just the problem, Bush's own lawyers were concerned that this might be unconstitutional thats why it took a whistleblower for it to come to light. I have a real problem with Presidents who know something is illegal, or unconstitutional but who do it anyway.

You missed the point, the president has no offical power to kill impeachment process, but he does have measures to make sure that it never happens in the first place. For example he can block the use of a independent counsel investigation (Bush tried to do it 3 times, but was forced to relent because of public opinion). Another way is to make sure the impeachment charge never gets out of a congressional commitee (president must have cronies in congress for this to work).

You dont think the president didnt know about the torture, than why was Bush so adamently against McCain's anti-torture bill last year? Why did Cheney try and have Congress approve measures that could be described as "cruel, inhuman and degrading" a process that up to now we have cricized other countries of doing. Not only did they know about it, they most likely authorized it.

Phoenix

I'll answer that. A very poor personal decision, not the proper image of a US president. But outside his family, not a big deal. There was no outstanding damage to the country other than the hypocritical 'moral outrage' coming from the far right many of which it turned out later were guilty of exactly the same thing. Its not illegal for the president to have an affair and Clinton was far from the only president to do it. You could even open a bordello in Congress.

So who are these few select people that run congress to such an extent that a bill can pass through congress with no signatures but these few select people? (I think that makes sense). As for condoning unconstitutional or illegal acts etc. All one needs to do is look back in history at the various presidents prior to the current president. Seems to me there is a personal axe to grind here.

I did not miss your point on dismissing or blocking impeachment proceedings. There is no way possible that the president can block impeachiment procedures if there were enough someones adamant that it go through. The president is not above the law as has been demonstrated in the recent past. Clinton was brought up for impeachment because he commited perjury, not because of adultery. They didn't want to, or was unable to, levy enough evidence against the current president for an impeachment to work. I believe it was more that they didn't really want to, they were using it as a tactic to put him back in the negative limelight again.

What is this torture bill? Sorry I am a bit ignorant about alot of things. Mind providing a few links?
 
mmarsh said:
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.

Isn't that contradicting yourself?

That is what has been told to everyone by who? The media and other outlets? Unless you are a fly on the wall at every turn and conversation how can you say with any accuracy how or what the president feels.

It chaps my hide when someone says "this is how soandso feels". Just like any other person, maybe he feels he is doing the right thing. Even though some or all or most may not view it that way.

The parent lays down limitations rules etc you name it. The child may view it as totally unfair but then again the child does not have all the answers the parent does. (Poor example I know, but the best I can think of)

Chief Bones said:
I guess the above best describes the reason I no longer respect the Office of the President.

MM - I know you said that you still respect the office ... but ... the portion of your post I included describes my feelings exactly ...

Come on Chief. All he stated above was that he did not care for the man, just in different words. Again, being a military man you should know that there are different forms of respect, not all of them equate to the same thing.

There is no changing my mind that the office/title of The President Of The United States Of America should not be disrespected by anyone for any reason. That is like dropping the flag on the ground and letting people walk all over it is an OK thing to do. The office of president is a symbol/icon of America, the same as the flag. I find it hard to believe that you would allow anyone to disrespect the flag that so many have fought and died for. Yet you say you disrespect the very office pledged to lead the country if the need arises to defend that flag and all it represents.

On a personal note: I feel it is unreasonable to feel disprespect for a person that you have never met in person, or even know on a personal basis. All one can use to form an opinion about a person they have never met is by other peoples opinions and the twists and spins they put on their opinions. We all know what they say about opinions.
 
I'll answer that. A very poor personal decision, not the proper image of a US president. But outside his family, not a big deal. There was no outstanding damage to the country other than the hypocritical 'moral outrage' coming from the far right many of which it turned out later were guilty of exactly the same thing. Its not illegal for the president to have an affair and Clinton was far from the only president to do it. You could even open a bordello in Congress.

BS again!

Clinton was as guilty as any Republican congressman who was CHARGED (not found guilty yet) in the past few months.

Where were you when he was begging Saudi royal family for money to build his library while USAF personnel were attack at Khobar tower in Saudi Arabia?

Yeah, right... some one was sucking his dick and OBL attacked the US interests world wide and he, for the purpose of saving the face and distract the public, launched useless attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan.

These are not damaging to the image of the president but liberating two countries, helping free many other countries, a strong economy at home and lots of other things are signs of weakness and damage??!

:lol:

Way to go, libs!
 
Last edited:
Bunk ...................

Marinerhodes said:
There is no changing my mind that the office/title of The President Of The United States Of America should not be disrespected by anyone for any reason. That is like dropping the flag on the ground and letting people walk all over it is an OK thing to do. The office of president is a symbol/icon of America, the same as the flag. I find it hard to believe that you would allow anyone to disrespect the flag that so many have fought and died for. Yet you say you disrespect the very office pledged to lead the country if the need arises to defend that flag and all it represents.

You just went over the line I WILL NOT cross ... I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT EQUATE THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT WITH THE US FLAG.

MY FRIENDS AND FELLOW WARRIORS DID NOT DIE FOR AN OFFICE OR FOR A PRESIDENT ... THEY DIED FOR OUR COUNTRY ... THE FLAG REPRESENTS THE HONOR AND BLOOD THEY SPILLED IN EVERY CORNER OF THE WORLD AND ACROSS EVERY OCEAN/SEA (Red/White/Blue).

Don't you dare :cens: believe that I would standby while our flag was disrespected (or) desecrated... I didn't spend 20+ years of my life to allow that. I also believe that has earned me the RIGHT to decide that if the man holding the office doesn't appear to respect that office ...
then neither will I.

The office SHOULD be an ICON ... but .........:stupid:
 
Back
Top