The Office and the Man
 

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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] :rolleyes:

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

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

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? :)

Only what was promised.

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

Read my fucking lips...oh I'm sure you've heard broken promises before. Anything to win an election. At least Obama is giving a shot to his promises.

You would be happy if you were right, which means your guns and ideals and water supply will be in great peril.

I don't care, because I'm not afraid of the world. But you will view any views outside of yours as counter to what you are used to, and therefore evil. You might want to get used to being nice. It might just save you someday.

7 Broken Promises in Record Time
1. Make government open and transparent.

2. Make it "impossible" for Congressmen to slip in pork barrel projects.

3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. (Even Congressional Republicans shut out.)

4. No more secrecy.

5. Public will have 5 days to look at a bill.

6. You’ll know what’s in it.

7. We will put every pork barrel project online.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/o...cy-about-bills

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.

Ummmm.... yea, fuck that. I have tried that in the past. It fails as a useful tool to get things done.

More failed promises.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Oh then, Merc...what are YOU doing to change things, besides posting articles all the time?

Are you happy and comfortable with yourself? Are you true to YOU every day? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. What are you doing to get things done?

I don't read dana'a question as pertaining to a particular president. I understood "(regardless of who is in power), how far can you go when mocking the president? At what point will you get thrown in jail?"

but maybe i'm nuts

"We will close GITMO by December of 2009!"

Fail. He can't do it.

This has nothing to do with me. This has everything to do with Obama and what he promised the American public.

I agree.

This whole statement is comical on so many levels.

Read my lips, no new Gitmo.

It's a far sight better at attempting to live up to campaign promises than I've seen in my lifetime...there are obstacles. You seriously don't see that?

That is always your first and best response. Read: useless.

Well yeah. :blush:

But I'm guessing dana likes the political discourse she has prompted. :)

I see that he promised to close it by Dec. And I fully support it. If he does not he fails.

"there are obstacles"? No shit? So you are willing to give him a pass but not Bush? Fuck that, if it is not closed by Dec, as he promised, all the blame rests on him. Completely.

I agree. 99% of everything Redux posts is quite useless.

You never address anything that doesn't jibe with your viewpoint. I don't have to say it again, you'll just ignore it anyway.

I agree. I don't think this thread was meant to discuss individuals, but more a comentary about the office of pres.

Over here you can pretty much say anything you like about the PM, but then, we have a very similar set up as the UK atm.

Oh, good point.

No different from how I am treated, eh?

yea, how about that?

Cite!

haggis

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

All any of that really means is that you have a big old crush on me! :D

Actually it is quite cogent and tragic. I was never a big fan of the whole "I must destroy it to protect it" mindset. I agree with Redux.

Redux:

Oh look! Well how about that...

continues:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/us...gewanted=print

Signing statements are not necessarily unconstitutional. It is how they are used and on what provisions of laws.

Signing statements have been used by many presidents in the past. But the fact remains that Bush used signing statements on specific provisions of legislation more than any president in history, in fact more than all past presidents combined.

The practice peaked under Mr. Bush, who challenged nearly 1,200 provisions of bills over eight years — about twice the number challenged by all previous presidents combined, according to data compiled by Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio professor.

And he used signing statements like a line item veto, according to some legal authorities, which the Supreme Court had ruled was unconstitutional.

I would agree with the conclusion of one authority in the NY Times article:

“He has not pushed the envelope as far as the Bush administration in making the kind of claims that Bush made.” said Phillip Cooper, a Portland State University professor who studies signing statements. “But he is still using it in ways that were controversial before George W. Bush came to office

He might be testing the limits....more than I might think is appropriate because of the precedent set by Bush....but by no measure, has he reached the the Bush level.....yet. Will he push the envelope as far as Bush? IMO, you're jumping the gun a bit with another "gotcha" that is far from conclusive.

But putting that aside, the unilateral expansion of power that I was referring to were actions like the interpretation that a Congressional "Authorization of Use of Military Force" (AUMF) gave the president the same extended powers in "wartime" as the Wars Powers Act, which Congress specifically did not authorize. ...

...which resulted in actions the illegal Terrorist Surveillance Program that circumvented FISA requirements and violated basic Constitutional protections...and was kept secret from Congress...

...and actions like unilaterally reinterpreting US constitutional treaty obligations regarding treatment of detainees -- authorizing enhanced interrogation (torture), extended use of extraordinary rendition to countries that torture their own citizens, CIA black prisons. (all of which Obama ended with an EO).

added:
I have said on more than one occasion that in regards to national security, I dont agree with all of Obama's actions...which in some respects, are "Bush lite"...probably where most of the country is. I would always like to see more of a tilt towards preserving constitutional rights and privacy protections.

I knew going in that Obama was more centrist than leftist on national security....but IMO, there is nothing to-date to suggest a repeat of the worst of Bush's abuses I noted above.

You mean the same one the Demoncrats repeatedly approved after years of bitching about it? Yea, they approved it on the second go round.

You can't make excuses for things that Bush2 did and were such an abonimation and now Obama gets some kind of a pass on it. The double standards abound. I am sure they will continue to mount until eventually you will see that the Demoncrats and Republickins are not much different from one another.

WTF are you talking about?

The new FISA legislation was enacted after the Terrorist Surveillance Program was exposed as being illegal for warrantless wiretaps of US citizens within the US with virtually no oversight. It included explicit checks on who (and how) warranteless wiretaps can be used as well as greater judicial review and reporting by the FISA court of warrantless wiretap requests by the WH and greater oversight by Congress so that illegal and secret actions like those taken by Bush could not be repeated.

And yes, Obama voted for it (an example of my "Bush lite" reference).

I still would have voted against it...I dont think the privacy protections go far enough and it still granted immunity to the telecomms for their past actions and allows them to continue to do so at the request of the WH based solely on the word of the DoJ that the actions would be legal.

You know exactly what I am talking about. Don't act like you don't know. The Demoncratically controlled house approved the action after bitching about how bad it was for years by approving Patriot Act 2 and the FISA Bill. Obama voted along with all Republicans for cloture.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa.../09/fisa_vote/

The bitch about the betrayal of the Dems and what it means to live with their vote.:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...isa/index.html

In fact, less than half of the Democrats voted for the FISA amendments, including Obama. I would not have.

I know exactly what I am talking about....as bad as I thought the bill was, at least it included the provisions that I noted that will prevent Obama or any future president from acting unilaterally, outside of the FISA Court and Congressional oversight, on warrantless wiretaps in the manner that Bush did.

Damn...read the bill before making such sweeping conclusions and generalizations.

Further:

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-...ss-wiretapping

Read the bill before making such sweeping conclusions and generalizations about what Obama can and cannot do.

I have read it. The point is that you have made sweeping generalizations about what Bush did for 8 years and in fact the Dems, including Obama, have actually continued and retained many of the same provisions of privacy invasion in their actions on the hill by re-authorizing PA2, The new FISA Bill, and now with a continuation of the abuse of presidential signing statements. You can't hide behind this duplicity. Stop making excuses for the parallels.

Damn...even the bad FISA bill that a minority of Democrats voted for in 08 does not allow acts comparable to those that Bush authorized.

Hell...I'll even highlight a few of the provisions of the bill for you:
These are all safeguards to prevent any future reoccurence of Bush's illegal TSP.

At least some organization is paying attention. Maybe they can get Obama to uphold his campaign promise. I doubt it.

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/default.html

I give up.

I accept that you dont see the difference between acting with FISA Court approval as opposed to circumventing the FISA Court and with regular reporting by the AG to Congress (at least every six months) as opposed to keeping it secret from Congress.

Warrantless wiretaps continue under Obama. He has done nothing to change that.

Repeat.

I accept that you dont see the difference between acting with FISA Court approval as opposed to circumventing the FISA Court and with regular reporting by the AG to Congress (at least every six months) as opposed to keeping it secret from Congress.

Can you hear me now?

Repeat: Warrantless wiretaps continue under Obama. He has done nothing to change that. It is not just FISA. It is also the provisions of PA2 approved by the Dems in Congress. Pot meet Kettle.

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html

In fact, PA2 was enacted in 2006 when the Republicans still controlled Congress and a majority of Democrats in the House voted against it (66 Yea, 124 Nay). The Senate Democrats were not so opposed.

In both the House and the Senate, a majority of Democrats opposed the bi-partisan 2008 FISA amendments. (Senate Dems: 22 yea, 27 nay, House Dems: 105 yea, 128 nay)

In fact, if Pelsoi had maintained the House rules of her predecessor, it would never had passed, because it did not have the support of the "majority of the majority."

So to answer your question Dana, we have no problem attacking the man in office as long as he isn't from our party. If he belongs to our party he's a symbol of national pride and must be defended as if a god among men and if he isn't of our party then god help him.

*chuckles* thanks. It's been an interesting read.