Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!

But aside from that, there's a serious note here:

I hate the way we act like the President is some kind of King or God. He's just the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the Government. This thing where they say people have to show all kinds of respect for someone in that office regardless of whether they personally deserve it or not is ridiculous.

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!

But aside from that, there's a serious note here:

I hate the way we act like the President is some kind of King or God. He's just the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the Government. This thing where they say people have to show all kinds of respect for someone in that office regardless of whether they personally deserve it or not is ridiculous.

I disagree 100%.

This nation lost a great deal of its civility when the concept of respectful dissent with the president became old-fashioned.

White House Say Halperin's Vulgar Comment on MSNBC was 'Inappropriate'
ABC News' Political Punch ^ | June 30, 2011 | Jon Garcia

Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked to respond to MSNBC contributor Mark Halperin’s use of off-color and vulgar language to characterize the president. Halperin, who is Time magazine’s Editor-At-Large and a former ABC News Political Director, said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program that the President was being a “dick” during a press conference Wednesday. Though the show’s host, Joe Scarborough, called out immediately for the comment to be bleeped, it went out on air uncensored.

“The comment that was made was inappropriate. It would be inappropriate to say that about any president of either party. And on behalf of the White House I expressed that sentiment to executives at the network,” Carney said. “I have no comment on that -- whatever action that network, any network, any newspaper or whatever might make and -- because that's not for us to decide, and we didn't -- certainly -- you know, we just expressed our concern about the inappropriateness of the comment.”


Halperin immediately apologized on the air for the remark but was suspended indefinitely by MSNBC....

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...



Obama called a large segment of the country Tea Baggers

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2010/05 ... quote.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I disagree 100%.

This nation lost a great deal of its civility when the concept of respectful dissent with the president became old-fashioned.

To me, putting any public offiical...whether it be a President or a Legislator or a Judge or a Bureaucrat...on a pedistal...is wrong. We treat them as though they are "special." They are not "special." They have roles. If something were to happen to any of them someone else would step in and assume the role. None of them are indispensible, none of them should be treated as more "important" than anyone else. They're just doing jobs.

We treat Presidents as though they are royalty in terms of the "respect" thing. We are not supposed to have royalty.

Would a dick do this?
I think this is what he was referring to.

At the press conference Obama said he wanted to meet with Repubs about the debt limit and the economy… then today he says no to their invitation to meet.
Same presser he said congress had a bad “work ethic... you need to be here.”
Today Obama left for two more fund raisers.

Also those private Jet Tax Breaks he denounced multiple times were created by his own Stimulus Plan

I’d say he was acting like a dick

JoltinJoe wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!

But aside from that, there's a serious note here:

I hate the way we act like the President is some kind of King or God. He's just the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the Government. This thing where they say people have to show all kinds of respect for someone in that office regardless of whether they personally deserve it or not is ridiculous.

I disagree 100%.

This nation lost a great deal of its civility when the concept of respectful dissent with the president became old-fashioned.

THIS.

There has always been a coarse undercurrent in American politics - ask Alexander Hamilton or US Grant - but there was a time when the phrase "if you don't respect the man, respect the office" meant something... I think that went by the wayside with Nixon (which can be understood, though not condoned, IMO)

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
I disagree 100%.

This nation lost a great deal of its civility when the concept of respectful dissent with the president became old-fashioned.

THIS.

There has always been a coarse undercurrent in American politics - ask Alexander Hamilton or US Grant - but there was a time when the phrase "if you don't respect the man, respect the office" meant something... I think that went by the wayside with Nixon, only to have Clinton issue the death knell. (which can be understood, though not condoned, IMO)

FIFA

Bronco wrote:Would a dick do this?
I think this is what he was referring to.

At the press conference Obama said he wanted to meet with Repubs about the debt limit and the economy… then today he says no to their invitation to meet.
Same presser he said congress had a bad “work ethic... you need to be here.”
Today Obama left for two more fund raisers.

Also those private Jet Tax Breaks he denounced multiple times were created by his own Stimulus Plan

I’d say he was acting like a dick

Of course you would, you're a conk.

If this happened to a conk President you would call the analyst a dick.

He lost his dick when he married Ru Paul.

JoltinJoe wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!

But aside from that, there's a serious note here:

I hate the way we act like the President is some kind of King or God. He's just the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the Government. This thing where they say people have to show all kinds of respect for someone in that office regardless of whether they personally deserve it or not is ridiculous.

I disagree 100%.

This nation lost a great deal of its civility when the concept of respectful dissent with the president became old-fashioned.

JoltinJoe wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!

But aside from that, there's a serious note here:

I hate the way we act like the President is some kind of King or God. He's just the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of the Government. This thing where they say people have to show all kinds of respect for someone in that office regardless of whether they personally deserve it or not is ridiculous.

I disagree 100%.

This nation lost a great deal of its civility when the concept of respectful dissent with the president became old-fashioned.

Agreed.

The Chimpy McCheneyburton stuff as case in point.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I disagree 100%.

This nation lost a great deal of its civility when the concept of respectful dissent with the president became old-fashioned.

To me, putting any public offiical...whether it be a President or a Legislator or a Judge or a Bureaucrat...on a pedistal...is wrong. We treat them as though they are "special." They are not "special." They have roles. If something were to happen to any of them someone else would step in and assume the role. None of them are indispensible, none of them should be treated as more "important" than anyone else. They're just doing jobs.

We treat Presidents as though they are royalty in terms of the "respect" thing. We are not supposed to have royalty.

Well said.

You earn respect through your actions...nothing else.

CID1990 wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
I disagree 100%.

This nation lost a great deal of its civility when the concept of respectful dissent with the president became old-fashioned.

Agreed.

The Chimpy McCheneyburton stuff as case in point.

I suppose you could argue it started with "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" and really blossomed with "Tricky Dick Nixon" but it has reached new heights since "Slick Willy"...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Agreed.

The Chimpy McCheneyburton stuff as case in point.

I suppose you could argue it started with "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" and really blossomed with "Tricky Dick Nixon" but it has reached new heights since "Slick Willy"...

Maybe it a mass media problem? Seems to me the faster we can transmit news (and sound bites) the less the civility.

BlueHen86 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
I suppose you could argue it started with "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today" and really blossomed with "Tricky Dick Nixon" but it has reached new heights since "Slick Willy"...

Maybe it a mass media problem? Seems to me the faster we can transmit news (and sound bites) the less the civility.

I wouldn't say that - what I will say is that for about 20 years now the political press has largely abdicated their traditional role in covering elections - and is instead covering the horserace. Instead of focusing on issues - they focus on the shit that we as operatives focus on - fundraising, messaging, targeting...

It's been said that politics is just Hollywood for ugly people - and if that's the case, the political press is not much different than the Hollywood press - half of them are sycophants who want us to like them - and the other half are sharks looking to destroy the next one...

as for why the change? I honestly blame Lee Atwater (Bush the First's CM) and ESPECIALLY Carville and Stephanopolous... their desire to be famous in their own right really fueled the change... when they started shopping process stories to show their guy with momentum - and how important that is - it was just another campaign spin technique - but the reporters went for it - because they all want to be seen as the one with "the inside scoop".

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Maybe it a mass media problem? Seems to me the faster we can transmit news (and sound bites) the less the civility.

I wouldn't say that - what I will say is that for about 20 years now the political press has largely abdicated their traditional role in covering elections - and is instead covering the horserace. Instead of focusing on issues - they focus on the **** that we as operatives focus on - fundraising, messaging, targeting...

It's been said that politics is just Hollywood for ugly people - and if that's the case, the political press is not much different than the Hollywood press - half of them are sycophants who want us to like them - and the other half are sharks looking to destroy the next one...

as for why the change? I honestly blame Lee Atwater (Bush the First's CM) and ESPECIALLY Carville and Stephanopolous... their desire to be famous in their own right really fueled the change... when they started shopping process stories to show their guy with momentum - and how important that is - it was just another campaign spin technique - but the reporters went for it - because they all want to be seen as the one with "the inside scoop".

Not sure I would rank Stephanopolous with Carville and Lee Atwater, but I pretty much concur with all that.

CID1990 wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
I wouldn't say that - what I will say is that for about 20 years now the political press has largely abdicated their traditional role in covering elections - and is instead covering the horserace. Instead of focusing on issues - they focus on the **** that we as operatives focus on - fundraising, messaging, targeting...

It's been said that politics is just Hollywood for ugly people - and if that's the case, the political press is not much different than the Hollywood press - half of them are sycophants who want us to like them - and the other half are sharks looking to destroy the next one...

as for why the change? I honestly blame Lee Atwater (Bush the First's CM) and ESPECIALLY Carville and Stephanopolous... their desire to be famous in their own right really fueled the change... when they started shopping process stories to show their guy with momentum - and how important that is - it was just another campaign spin technique - but the reporters went for it - because they all want to be seen as the one with "the inside scoop".

Not sure I would rank Stephanopolous with Carville and Lee Atwater, but I pretty much concur with all that.

Atwater was the first CM to write a book - and become a celebrity... he nudged open the door - Carville and Stephanopolous took it to a whole other level with "The War Room" and everything that followed.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I disagree 100%.

This nation lost a great deal of its civility when the concept of respectful dissent with the president became old-fashioned.

To me, putting any public offiical...whether it be a President or a Legislator or a Judge or a Bureaucrat...on a pedistal...is wrong. We treat them as though they are "special." They are not "special." They have roles. If something were to happen to any of them someone else would step in and assume the role. None of them are indispensible, none of them should be treated as more "important" than anyone else. They're just doing jobs.

We treat Presidents as though they are royalty in terms of the "respect" thing. We are not supposed to have royalty.

Having respect for someone isn't the same as putting them on a pedestal.

Having respect for someone isn't the same as putting them on a pedestal.

Let me try this to illustrate what I'm getting at: Suppose that guy had just called some regular Joe a "dick" while referring to some video or something. Would he have been suspended? I'd say probably not.

If you think somebody acted like a dick you should be able to say you think they acted like a dick whatever their particular role is. If you say that you shouldn't call ANYBODY a "dick" I can respect that. But if you say that you can't call the President a "dick" because he's the President that, to me, is wrong.

To me, repsecting the office means understanding the chain of command. Like military people should follow the President's orders regardless of what they personallyl think of him as long as he is in that position. But this thing about saying one has to show "respect" for a particular person in the office is, to me, nonsense. Obama as a person has no right to expect any more respect than anybody else gets.

Same with judges, congressmen, senators, local politicians...all of them.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Having respect for someone isn't the same as putting them on a pedestal.

Let me try this to illustrate what I'm getting at: Suppose that guy had just called some regular Joe a "dick" while referring to some video or something. Would he have been suspended? I'd say probably not.

If you think somebody acted like a dick you should be able to say you think they acted like a dick whatever their particular role is. If you say that you shouldn't call ANYBODY a "dick" I can respect that. But if you say that you can't call the President a "dick" because he's the President that, to me, is wrong.

To me, repsecting the office means understanding the chain of command. Like military people should follow the President's orders regardless of what they personallyl think of him as long as he is in that position. But this thing about saying one has to show "respect" for a particular person in the office is, to me, nonsense. Obama as a person has no right to expect any more respect than anybody else gets.

Same with judges, congressmen, senators, local politicians...all of them.

Maybe we shouldn't go on national TV and call someone a dick, no matter who the person is.

Maybe we shouldn't go on national TV and call someone a dick, no matter who the person is.

Well, I can respect that position. As long as there is no special respect demanded for the person who occupies any particular position such as "President."