job help: A thought…The president and politicians which run our - Help.com

Respect needs to be earned. If we don’t think the president is doing what is best for the country, he or she will not be respected.

Apparently not.

The position itself does deserve respect, but not necessarily the person holding the position.

im sure the money makes it all better for our leaders poor tortured minds

I think the President should start off with Respect, but dishonesty, disregard for human rights, The president’s own disregard for the oath he swore which was to protect and uphold the Constitution can make me lose the respect.

When the President doesn’t respect the office himself, by acting contrary to the very constitution he is sworn to uphold, and going out of his way to eliminate the checks on his power established in that constitution, then he has forfeited that respect.

Jade, you know that most people that will answer this post will not actually think about it, they will just repeat the views they already have and hold so dear to their Hearts.

Many presidents of old, and former governors, mayors, etc, were reviled and hated by some loud few during their time in office, but often, when the smoke cleared, people realized most of what they disagreed with, in their short view, turned out to be for the good of the majority.

Kind of like a toddler not wanting to go to bed, yet the parent does it anyway.

I respect a leader that is not afraid to be unpopular, and is willing to let a few outspoken know it alls keep right on speaking, without breaking stride.

yeah, funny, i hear a lot of talk about what this or that leader did wrong, but when you ask for specifics, you get rhetoric. And God forbid you ask for a better solution, because then you get attacked, so as to hide the detrators ignorance of the issues.

Good luck, Good night, and lets see if you get any intellegent answers here, or if they are all just gonna say “Bush killed my Pa”

ps. this lack of respect for the office or position has more to do with our countries issues than the actual office holder..and this applies all the way from the Pres down to the manager of the McDonalds where your nephews uncle works.

I agree with respecting a leader who isn’t driven by a need to be popular, or rule by the polls.

I have disagree at least about the lack of respect I personally have for this president, if not the office.

The issues that cause me to dislike this President has nothing to do with the issues of our nation except how this president reacted.

I have specific reasons.

1. FISA court. Bush has claimed that he should be able to wiretap without a warrant because a warrant would slow the process down and important intel would be lost. He wants to wiretap without any checks or balances. That is contrary to our rule of law, and our nations governing document which the President is sworn to uphold.

It is patently false that any time would have to be lost at all. Fisa allows wiretapping to begine immediately. The only thing it requires is that once it’s started the govt. gets a retroactive warrant. They have more than 72 hours to get that warrant. The reason why our nation put in those checks and balances was to protect citizens from the govt. including the Presidency. The founding fathers knew that was a greater danger than any outside nation or force.

2. Torture - America has long been a force to stand up to govts. that torture and act without rule of law towards its prisoners. This president has had officials tell congress that The president could legally sexually abuse infants and it would be allowed. I wish I were making this stuff up. But that is exactly what Yoo argued before congress.

The torture issues go into more depth than would worth reading right now, but they go deeper.

A president who does these things has himself disrespected the office, and the nation as a whole.

There are plenty of other issues, but those are the most clear cut.

Now I freely admit that the President does these things believing that he’s doing the best thing for our nation. But that’s no different than the feelings of almost every dictator and tyrant in history.

i am not scared of wiretaps, and can only assume those opposed are just making an issue for the sake of so called principles, or have something to hide

as for the torture thing, please do back that up..if I am reading that correctly, you are saying that President George W. Bush has had “officials”, whatever that vague term means, tell congress, on his behalf, that legally, the office of the President could sexually abuse infants?

clarify for me, did big bad ole Bush do this, or someone else?

this is how this happens, he said, she said, make it a little obscure, and it can be interpreted many ways.

I am asking for clarification, not obscurification (not sure if thats a real word, but it feels right)

__[ÅKSLOGISTIC® wrote:
__]i am not scared of wiretaps, and can only assume those opposed are just making an issue for the sake of so called principles, or have something to hide

as for the torture thing, please do back that up..if I am reading that correctly, you are saying that President George W. Bush has had “officials”, whatever that vague term means, tell congress, on his behalf, that legally, the office of the President could sexually abuse infants?

clarify for me, did big bad ole Bush do this, or someone else?

this is how this happens, he said, she said, make it a little obscure, and it can be interpreted many ways.

I am asking for clarification, not obscurification (not sure if thats a real word, but it feels right)

Well wiretaps may not bother you, but you are not the constitution of the U.S., nor our current legal system. But it is currently the law that they are illegal. The laws and constitution were put into place to apply to all of us including the president.

As far as the only people it bothers are those that have something to hide it is silly. People put their mail in envelopes which are also illegal to open without a warrant, not because they have something to hide, but because our nation is partially founded on and has a belief in the principle of a right to privacy. If you or Bush wish to change those laws and principles there is a process for amending the U.S. constitution. So far that hasn’t been done.

As for torture I’m happy to provide some more insight. Here is what John Yoo who worked for the President’s legal counsel, and Justice department said. So yes he was an official of the whitehouse.

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.[10]

So basically he says that if the President feels he needs to, it is ok to crush the the testicles of a a child. Sorry America has been about holding the moral high ground for as long as most of us can remember. To shame the nation by usurping that kind of torture power for the Presidency is a lack of respect. You should also check out Yoo’s other ideas and the way he tries to justify not following the FISA laws.

Furthermore the President signed an anti-torture law and then immediately signed a statement basically saying he didn’t have to follow that law. When a President wants one set of laws for everyone else, and a different set of laws for himself then it is he who is disrespecting the office of presidency.

basically?? Yoo is not Bush, and saying Basically, virtually, etc, when describing your “detailed” info to me just kind of reinforces what i am saying.

and, wiretaps are not covered in the Constitution one way or the other, just so you know

this is just another form of propaganda. which your side so often accuses your oponents of using…take a few words out of context,. assign them motives, use all inclusive words such as basicallt, so you can force the reader to jump to your conclusions, and refer to so called violatiions of the constitution.

JADE, sorry your thread became this..wish you had invited people

__[ÅKSLOGISTIC® wrote:
__]basically?? Yoo is not Bush, and saying Basically, virtually, etc, when describing your “detailed” info to me just kind of reinforces what i am saying.

and, wiretaps are not covered in the Constitution one way or the other, just so you know

this is just another form of propaganda. which your side so often accuses your oponents of using…take a few words out of context,. assign them motives, use all inclusive words such as basicallt, so you can force the reader to jump to your conclusions, and refer to so called violatiions of the constitution.

JADE, sorry your thread became this..wish you had invited people

I have to disagree with you.

Yoo is not Bush. That much is true. But Bush is the President and is ultimately responsible for his staff, officials and those that BUSH CHOOSES TO REPRESENT HIM.

It doesn’t make sense for you to remove all responsibility from the President who is in charge of selecting officials to represent him, and his office.

As far as wiretapping not being protected by the constitution, you are mistaken again.

The constitution directly addresses illegal search and seizure. You might want to look directly at the 4th and 14 amendments.

Furthermore, the U.S. constitution designates the Judicial branch to oversee the Constitution.

Here is what they had to say regarding the wiretapping.

“President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional because it authorizes illegal searches, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” wrote U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit.”

That is from an article in USA TODAY which is hardly an outlet of propaganda.

I think see where the confusion might have been coming from, and that is an unfamiliarity with the U.S. constitution which is the governing document of the United States.

If I wasn’t really familiar with it, I might not understand what the problem was either.

I hope this helps clarify the situation.

Jade, thank you for providing a great thread in order clear up some of the confusions regarding this important issue.

Jade wrote:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let’s have fun with this..

The Constitution was written in 1787 Amendent 4 was changed in 1791 - phones, computers, and the like did not exist. Chemical warfare did not exist, planes driven into buildings was not even a thought in the minds of our forefathers so the term UPON PROBABLE CAUSE has changed with the times. Because the level of threat has changed. (man with gun or chemical bomb…how can probable cause not be changed and thus the appropriate action pull man off horse and shoot him or wiretap to find out sources of hidden enemies - must change as well).

It’s fine if you disagree with the way the constitution defines probably cause or if you disagree with the 4th amendment.

Again there are procedures put in place for changing the constitution. Those procedures do not include ignoring the law, and rule of law as laid out by the courts which are constitutionally mandated to oversee and rule on the constitutionality of laws.

Bush did not initiate any of the procedures for changing probable cause, or the constitution.

Furthermore the founding fathers faced far greater danger from outside forces than we do today despite chemical weapons etc. The Whitehouse was burned to the ground along with a good chunk of the capitol. There were foreign troops stationed on our land.

The founding fathers didn’t have any idea about phones or wiretaps, but they did have an idea about govts. that took tyrannical steps to invade privacy and deny rights of citizens.

Certainly using your own phone fits in with “persons… and effects” as described in the constitution.

Wiretapping is way to search for evidence. That’s what the 4th amendment deals with.

Even if you are worried about dealing with chemical weapons and other modern techniques that might be employed against us, but the FISA court allows the wiretapping to begin without a warrant. All they have to do is go back later and get a warrant. There is no time loss in dealing with the surveillance. Yet it still offers the checks and balances our nation was intended to have.

Thanks for your eagerness to have fun with the issue. I think it should definitely be enjoyable.

I agree with Jeb and Jade

I like the discussion. I don’t think that anyone has to be convinced one way or the other. I think both sides can express their opinion, and give the other side a glimpse or little bit of understanding what their opponents on the issue think, and their rationale.

this is hilarious! and i HATE politics. Who do we all think will win the 2008 election? My opinion is that if Obama or Clinton even get CLOSE, someone will shoot them. NOTE: I have nothing against them, but i know that the American people can be…well….stupid.

oh boy, this is a big post. (takes deep breath) I don’t think we “have” to respect a man who became president just because he did. He knew what the job was going to be before he got there. He knew all about the pressures and all of that. So no, I don’t think he deserves respect just because of the office he holds. Thats like saying the presedent of the company deserves respect even though the company just went bankrupt. I don’t agree with that thinking at all. I think in any position, a person deserves respect if they do a good job, and if they don’t they should be fired. Thats all. Did Bush do a good job, thats another debate all together, but your original post asked did he deserve respect just because his job is hard to do. My answer is no. (winces) don’t be to mad at me, thats just how I see it. Still love you though.

^^wonderful reply.

respect the Office, respect the Badge, respect that, idiot or not, he is more succesfull than 99.9% of the population. Sour grapes, I tell ya.

and i gotta know, what do Hillary or Obama have going for them besides being part of pop culture..God forbid they actually have to win on mereit, and don’t, cause then i get to spend the next 4 years hearing about a “stolen” election and how much better one of them would have been.

funny, everyone I know is better off financially since Bush took office/

No matter, all you remember what you are saying now, in case your pic gets to office, and fouls up..i will still respect the office, as I did when Slick Willy made a mockery of it.

Hope you all vote, and give to your local Red Cross…i said local, damnet

__[ÅKSLOGISTIC® wrote:
__]respect the Office, respect the Badge, respect that, idiot or not, he is more succesfull than 99.9% of the population. Sour grapes, I tell ya.

and i gotta know, what do Hillary or Obama have going for them besides being part of pop culture..God forbid they actually have to win on mereit, and don’t, cause then i get to spend the next 4 years hearing about a “stolen” election and how much better one of them would have been.

funny, everyone I know is better off financially since Bush took office/

No matter, all you remember what you are saying now, in case your pic gets to office, and fouls up..i will still respect the office, as I did when Slick Willy made a mockery of it.

Hope you all vote, and give to your local Red Cross…i said local, damnet

Actually Bush wasn’t more successful. Every business he ran failed, and had to be bailed out by James Baker and other powerful friends. He was successful at being born in a powerful wealthy family. But he did very little for himself.

I think Bush has been successful at getting sober, probably being a loving father, and he seems to have a good sense of humor. I believe that he truly believes in what he’s doing. But most of his programs haven’t been successful. I think he’s more successful than 20% of the people.

As for the merits of Clinton or Obama, I’ll just talk about Obama. He’s passed legislation co-sponsored with memebers of the opposite party that has increased border security, aided in immigration reform, made it tougher for terrorists to get weapons like rocket launchers, etc. Perhaps most importantly he passed(again co-sponsored with a Republican) the transparncy act which requires candidates to make public where they get their money from and how much they get. It helps keep things out in the open.

Furthermore he was a community activist, who helped clean up hazardous materials and make his community safer. He did this work when he could have taken his Harvard law degree and turned it into big money.

In Illinois he helped pass legislation that required all confessions to be videotaped, was endorsed by the law enforcement agencies increased health care for children and uninsured in the state, etc.

His accomplishments are actually quite substantial. He would stand a good chance at winning on those alone. Yet they aren’t the main reason why he’s doing well.

“I think Bush has been successful at getting sober, probably being a loving father, and he seems to have a good sense of humor. I believe that he