Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Respect for the President
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Leon



Joined: 31 May 2010

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's clear that there are many people who do criticize Obama for his race, and that is a horrible reality of America. I think it's plenty fair to point it out, but only when it's obviously about his race. If someone calls the president a N***** than I think that even Vistorq would be able to condemn that person. The problem is when people start pretending that they can read others minds and guess why they are criticizing the president.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like one of Jon Stewarts takes. The Republicans always talk about how Obama is ruiing the country but any time they give examples it is lies. If they have to stoop to lies, then Obama must not be doing all that bad. Still, the country gets the "feeling" that Obama is doing so bad. Welcome to propaganda 101.

I also don't understand why people complain about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. It is not his fault. He did not campaign for it. It may be the fault of the Nobel Peace Prize people. But, why get angry at Obama? An American has won something; we should be proud as we are when any American wins something. Instead, we vent our anger. It is a little dishonest and disrespectful, don't you think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unibrow



Joined: 20 Aug 2012

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

recessiontime wrote:


I applaud the fact that Obama actually gave us something to look at though. I'm STILL waiting on the evidence they actually killed Osama bin laden though....remember that?


I actually believe they killed Bin laden. If it was so easy to fake, why wouldn't Bush have done it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unibrow wrote:
I actually believe they killed Bin laden.


Well, you would have to, wouldn't you?


Last edited by geldedgoat on Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
I like one of Jon Stewarts takes. The Republicans always talk about how Obama is ruiing the country but any time they give examples it is lies. If they have to stoop to lies, then Obama must not be doing all that bad. Still, the country gets the "feeling" that Obama is doing so bad. Welcome to propaganda 101.

Actually, all the examples I use of how Obama is ruining the country consist of his own lies. Like this gem:
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last 8 years is to take out a credit card from the bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our National Debt from 5 trillion dollars in the first 42 Presidents. Number 43 added 4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over 9 trillion dollars in debt that we are going to have to pay back. $30,000 every man, woman and child. It's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

Then there's a nice list including:
Guantanamo Bay
The Patriot Act
"The most transparent government ever" which now persecutes whistleblowers
Withdrawal from Iraq ahead of Bush's timeline
Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Domestic wiretapping
Reduction of corporatism
Relaxation of Federal Drug enforcement

Obama reminds me of Bush, who was talking like this about nation building before he became President.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unibrow wrote:
recessiontime wrote:


I applaud the fact that Obama actually gave us something to look at though. I'm STILL waiting on the evidence they actually killed Osama bin laden though....remember that?


I actually believe they killed Bin laden. If it was so easy to fake, why wouldn't Bush have done it?

Your belief is entirely a matter of faith. There is literally zero substantial evidence that they did in fact kill him.

I mean, dumping his body in the ocean the day after?? Why couldn't they have taken a picture for the record?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

People criticize the President. Its part of who we are as a people. I don't have a problem with that. Its overboard with Obama but its people that 'dont' matter' so to speak.

The disrespect for the office coming from media pundits and elected officials is what concerns me the most. People who should know better and do better.

The congressman who yelled out 'liar' at the state of the union represents this disrespect. As well as the governor pointing her finger into Obama's face.

The office brings with it some traditional perks. When the President calls you drop whatever you're doing and accept the call from his secretary. Doesn't matter. Presidents have been known to dress down congressmen. LBJ was known for his swear word tinged screaming at Congressmen. Its not pretty but its one of the 'perks' and you sit there and take it.

There are stories that republican congresspersons would put the President on hold and say they'll call him back. Totally against tradition. Its one of those things that you just do, you accept the call and whomever it is you put them on hold. Its understood that if you're in a meeting and your secretary says the President is on the line, your guest totally understand. Obama is the first president I've heard to be put on hold in that manner. Why him? As bad as Bush, he was afforded the respect for the office by elected officials. Even Nixon was not disrespected by elected officials. He was treated respectfully because of the office.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
LBJ was known for his swear word tinged screaming at Congressmen.


Yeah, but LBJ was an old-school machine politician.

Both parties have one or two congressmen, senators, and possibly even mayors who can (and do) tell the supposed "higher-ups" to take a hike, though they are fast becoming fewer and fewer. This was more true back in the 60s and before.

Now, its more business leaders and the wealthy who can hang up on the President or even scream "Get me the President on line 1. Now."

Never put too much faith in the supposed power and influence of someone without much wealth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There has always been immense respect for the office by office holders and elected officials. Campaigns are one thing but while in office on official business, the President is accorded all respect traditionally.

Congressmen or mayors simple do not talk publicly about the president in that manner traditionally outside the campaign season. As for as getting the President on the phone that simply isn't done. Congressmen don't ask for an audience with the president. Before they even think about it they must go traditionally go through the their committee chairperson, they go to the whip and that person has to go through the white house contact up to including the chief of staff and then maybe..just maybe they get a meeting. Even the Speaker doesn't just get an appointment like that. Everything is on the President's schedule.

The fact is the amount of disrespect shown the office by certain people in the media as well as elected officials is unprecedented. Changing times, maybe? Something else? Perhaps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
There has always been immense respect for the office by office holders and elected officials. Campaigns are one thing but while in office on official business, the President is accorded all respect traditionally.

Congressmen or mayors simple do not talk publicly about the president in that manner traditionally outside the campaign season. As for as getting the President on the phone that simply isn't done. Congressmen don't ask for an audience with the president. Before they even think about it they must go traditionally go through the their committee chairperson, they go to the whip and that person has to go through the white house contact up to including the chief of staff and then maybe..just maybe they get a meeting. Even the Speaker doesn't just get an appointment like that. Everything is on the President's schedule.

The fact is the amount of disrespect shown the office by certain people in the media as well as elected officials is unprecedented. Changing times, maybe? Something else? Perhaps.


Implicit in this is the idea that politicians have more "real" power than Business leaders and owners, particularly in the military, financial and technology sectors and that the Executive branch is a cohesive unit devoid of faction and individual interests and has unswerving loyalty to the President. This would also seem to imply that political donors and other types of backers have no leverage with the President.

While I agree that when it comes to standard procedure (and even during more stressful times), the President gets the formal treatment, during certain times that is ignored.

Actually, the whole Office of the President as some sort of great post is a phenomenon that ebbs and flows in American politics.

Looking at the Ike-LBJ era you'd have people like Mayor Daley or J. Edgar Hoover who were clearly unimpressed with the President's power. Back in earlier times do you think there was a more powerful person in America than JP Morgan? You don't think he could have walked up the steps of the White House and demanded entrance and an audience? You don't think that when he said "jump" the President said "How High?"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First, we are talking about two different things. Public respect for the office. J Edgar Hoover and JP Morgan didn't publicly disrespect the office. That is what is being debated.

Second, pure speculation that JP Morgan could demand a meeting. Can Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or the CEO of Apple, the biggest company demand a meeting and tell the President to jump? They are the modern day versions of JP Morgan.
Money and power gives you access to the Presidency but I don't see any evidence it gives you power 'over' the President. The President may want their money and endorsement but not so sure giving them power. Wall Street backed Obama, Obama went against them and they backed Romney. They didn't seem to have much power over Obama.
Speculation but I'd side with no with regards to how much power they have. The limitless money and time and the ability to make laws affecting you has always been the government's trump card.
Rockerfeller lost in his fight with the government and had his companies broken up. I can't think of a robber baron or uber rich that 'won' when fighting against the goverment. The Sherman anti trust act and other similar acts broke up the biggest companies and industries. So, the empirical evidence so far sides with the government from what I can tell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
First, we are talking about two different things. Public respect for the office. J Edgar Hoover and JP Morgan didn't publicly disrespect the office. That is what is being debated.

Who cares. If you want to go grovel before government, nobody is stopping you. For the rest of us, a healthy disdain for the office is a good thing. I would also add that it's no surprise people have less respect for Obama, since he spends half his time goofing off or going on talk shows. He's more like a reality TV show character than a 'stately' figure.

Oh, but I forgot... the real reason is that everyone's racist. I should've known better.

Quote:
Second, pure speculation that JP Morgan could demand a meeting. Can Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or the CEO of Apple, the biggest company demand a meeting and tell the President to jump? They are the modern day versions of JP Morgan.

No, they are not the modern day versions of JP Morgan. They are chumps by comparison. I guarantee you if David Rockefeller went to the White House he could demand an audience. In fact, he could probably just demand an audience and the president would come to him.

Quote:
Rockerfeller lost in his fight with the government and had his companies broken up.
Laughing

How little you know. The Rockefellers pretty much own the country. Look up the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the Council for the Americas (and several other round table groups that come up with policy for our government). David Rockefeller (or his father, John D. Jr.) founded most of them and is the chairman or president of them all. You've heard the phrase "cherchez la femme"? Well, in American politics it's "cherchez le Rockefeller". There is pretty well nothing their influence doesn't touch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Public respect for the office. J Edgar Hoover and JP Morgan didn't publicly disrespect the office. That is what is being debated.


As far as public disrespect go back to the mid-19th Century and look at the political cartoons and read the writings and its as partisan and vitriolic as anything written today, maybe even more so.

As for a prime example of the President holding less sway, one example is at the end of the Civil War following Lincoln's assassination when President Johnson wanted to start rounding up ex-Confederates and the hanging to begin. General Grant had given his written assurance to Lee that there would be general amnesty and peace. General Grant made it clear to Johnson that he would not follow such an order and implied that the men under his command would not hesitate to disobey such an order and further implied that if Johnson tried it, like Caesar he would march on Washington and get rid of Johnson. This is why even after the assassination men like Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Joseph Brown, Robert Toombs, and Cyrus Vance escaped the noose.

Quote:
Can Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or the CEO of Apple, the biggest company demand a meeting and tell the President to jump? They are the modern day versions of JP Morgan.


No, they aren't. JP Morgan was the major backer of gold (and thus credit and finance) to the US Government. The man was absolutely untouchable. He didn't meet face-to-face with the President, he sent his representatives to meet with the President and deliver his terms.

To believe that the President has such power is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in this country and the leverage the President has. It assumes that the President can attain instant and powerful results on things he undertakes. It also assumes that laws reflect some sort of political or moral will, rather than the expression of interests.

There is a reason most major CEOs don't want to be President, it's because they have greater power in their current position. They generate more wealth as a CEO, to them the President acts to further their interests and be a public face and lighting rod for actions they undertake.

Now of course, our country has a variety of interests of varying degrees of power, which is why of course sometimes a company/lobby gets its way and sometimes it doesn't. It's competing against other powerful interests and the amount it stands to gain vs. the amount to lose dictates the amount of energy they are going to devote towards getting "their way".

Quote:
Wall Street backed Obama, Obama went against them and they backed Romney. They didn't seem to have much power over Obama.


Depends on what part of Wall Street, the bailouts resulted in concerns which Obama represented gaining greater relative influence. However, one could turn it around and say Obama doesn't have much power over them as basically all he did wasturn the ball around and put it on their half of the field, but it's not like he scored a decisive touchdown.

Quote:
The limitless money and time and the ability to make laws affecting you has always been the government's trump card.


The money is not limitless, if Obama just decided to start printing massive amounts of money and destroying the financials of the banks, the banks would have him out of office in minutes.

And again, those laws are expressions of the factions they represent. Those laws are made by Congress, not the President. The power individual congressmen hold is far less.

Quote:
I can't think of a robber baron or uber rich that 'won' when fighting against the goverment. The Sherman anti trust act and other similar acts broke up the biggest companies and industries. So, the empirical evidence so far sides with the government from what I can tell.


For one, those actions are not taken in part solely by the government, but by the government representing other business interests which are acting against those who are encumbering their operations. It's business vs. business with "Government" as the smokescreen to cover it all.

Also, in all those cases the "Robber Barons" understood that they would profit regardless and it was merely in which direction they had push their efforts. It was a battle, not a total war. Neither side had all to gain or lose.

Quote:
So, the empirical evidence so far sides with the government from what I can tell.


Clearly the President holds firm control over the American arms, technology, finance, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries. Rolling Eyes

I mean come on lefties, isn't this the same government office that under George W. Bush was little more than a subsidiary of the weapons industry, oil, Wall Street, Big Pharma, and Mega-Agra?

But now under Obama it's some magical post of sanctity and impartiality, keeping business in line? Please.

For the record, in both party's cases, the office is not the most powerful. It's like a company. The President is not the most powerful person, they control day-to-day operations, but it is the CEO and the shareholders/Board of Directors that have the power.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I could not care less about his race (though for what it's worth he actually comes off as being more white than black to me, and he is half-white after all)...


I cannot help but wish we had an expanded version of just what this means. I would almost pay money to read it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya-ta Boy,

Me too!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International