The Office of the President

[firstandten]

I have never seen the office of the President disrespected as much as since Obama has been in office.

Now I'm separating his policies from respecting the title that he holds.

Clinton got a bj as president yet while talked about greatly by repubs I don't think the office that he held was disrespected as it is now.

People hated Bush but only a non-american disrespected his office [[shoe throwing incident).

The Hank Williams Jr. statement, the you lie statement by that member of Congress, antichrist, Hitler, the racial statements referring to Obama that pop up on a regular basis leads me to believe that there is more to not just agreeing with his policies which happens to all Presidents but there is a racial component to this kind of talk.

Policies aside, Obama has done nothing in his personal comportment to deserve this kind of talk. He has respected the office of the President.

As people we need to know the difference between disagreement and disrespect and behave accordingly.

The crap that Hank Jr let out was wrong on many different levels. I hope the four letter king of sports cans his ass and gets someone else to do the intro.

The office of the President of the United States is one of the most powerful offices in the world. It is in our best interest [[Dems and Repubs) to make sure we don't demean the man who holds the office , because then you demean the office and I don't think Americans really want that.

[jiminnm]

You apparently weren't reading the comments on this board, dailykos, moveon, huffington, slate and untold hundreds of other liberal sites from 2001-2008.

[rb336]

You apparently weren't reading the comments on this board, dailykos, moveon, huffington, slate and untold hundreds of other liberal sites from 2001-2008.

show me an example from one of those sites that matches the vitriol shown on a regular basis on faux news, from the teabaggers [[and, evidently Bocephus).

[Det_ard]

Always comical when some on the left get selective amnesia about the Bush years.

[firstandten]

Always comical when some on the left get selective amnesia about the Bush years.

Fine give me some examples like I just did, and make the distinction between disagreement and disrespect

[Papasito]

Wow. This thread is ripe. Where to begin?

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/...itlerMegan.htm

Although political leaders from the time Hitler was in power to now have been likened to Hitler and the Nazi party, both conservatives and liberals have also made such comparisons in reference to anything from minor offenses to major political moves

Of course there is no problem with this?:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/...itlerMegan.htm

or this?:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/...itlerMegan.htm

or this?:
http://earthhopenetwork.net/Nazi_Bush.htm


I could go at this all day.. !

By the way, check out where photo #3 comes from... lefty website called
"Earthhope" "home of the wildlife conservation environmental
and freedom activist"

The fact of the matter is the comment :

I have never seen the office of the President disrespected as much as since Obama has been in office.

and

The Hank Williams Jr. statement, the you lie statement by that member of Congress, antichrist, Hitler, the racial statements referring to Obama that pop up on a regular basis leads me to believe that there is more to not just agreeing with his policies which happens to all Presidents but there is a racial component to this kind of talk.

is just laughable at this point.
Extremism is pouring out of both sides.
Time to stop drinking the Kool~aid, and realize both sides are playing us like a fiddle.

[firstandten]

Great post Papasito and interesting reading. Now that you have established a historical basis for the name calling and Hitler remarks my question to you and others is should this be acceptable political discourse.

I say no, and I did not make a distinction that Repubs do it more than Dems. I noted it is being done more to Obama than to Bush and I included Clinton. Obama probably because he has to deal with the racial insults as well as the political insults

[Mikeg]

Disrespectful behavior towards the President was particularly obnoxious on the day President Obama was inaugurated!

[Detroitej72]

Now that you have established a historical basis for the name calling and Hitler remarks my question to you and others is should this be acceptable political discourse.

I noticed that none of the cons on this board have answered your question yet, maybe you hit a nerve because all they want to do is say "libs do it too".

To answer your question, no, it should not be part of the discourse.

[Mikeg]

It isn't right but this kind of disrespectful verbal behavior has been going on for many years and it does seem to have gotten more prevalent since the election of 2000. However, it has always been considered political expression and protected free speech, regardless of how crude it is. The government can't punish you for it, but as Hank Jr. just found out, your employer has that right.

However, I think that by trying to attribute the disrespectful verbal behavior we've seen since Jan. 2009 to racism you are attempting to paint that kind of behavior with the "hate crimes" paintbrush - i.e., verbal behavior that's already considered disrespectful is somehow worse because of the possible thoughts of the perpetrator and who it is directed towards. Using the race card to stifle protected political expression just isn't going to fly.

[antongast]

It isn't right but this kind of disrespectful verbal behavior has been going on for many years and it does seem to have gotten more prevalent since the election of 2000. However, it has always been considered political expression and protected free speech, regardless of how crude it is. The government can't punish you for it, but as Hank Jr. just found out, your employer has that right.

However, I think that by trying to attribute the disrespectful verbal behavior we've seen since Jan. 2009 to racism you are attempting to paint that kind of behavior with the "hate crimes" paintbrush - i.e., verbal behavior that's already considered disrespectful is somehow worse because of the possible thoughts of the perpetrator and who it is directed towards. Using the race card to stifle protected political expression just isn't going to fly.

Some of the vitriol directed at Obama in particular is very specifically racial, though. Obama certainly isn't the first president to be compared to Hitler, but I'm pretty sure he's the first one to be called a "Kenyan anticolonialist," have his place of birth publicly and repeatedly called into question, or be depicted as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose, to name just three of many, many examples.

[Kevgoblue]

However, I think that by trying to attribute the disrespectful verbal behavior we've seen since Jan. 2009 to racism you are attempting to paint that kind of behavior with the "hate crimes" paintbrush - i.e., verbal behavior that's already considered disrespectful is somehow worse because of the possible thoughts of the perpetrator and who it is directed towards. Using the race card to stifle protected political expression just isn't going to fly.

Oh.
So I guess the posters likening the President to a monkey, the EIB Network's #1 Hit, "Barack the Magic Negro" and refering to 11 year old Malia to "ghetto street trash" is par for the course when talking about American Presidents.
OK. Move along now. Nothing to see here.
That shit definately isn't "protected political expression".

[Mikeg]

Oh.
So I guess the posters likening the President to a monkey, the EIB Network's #1 Hit, "Barack the Magic Negro" and refering to 11 year old Malia to "ghetto street trash" is par for the course when talking about American Presidents.
OK. Move along now. Nothing to see here.
That shit definately isn't "protected political expression".

Par for the course for at least two Presidents:


As for the "Magic Negro" term, it was first applied to US Senator Barack Obama by David Ehrenstein in this 2007 LA Times op-ed piece.

Whether we like it or not, it is protected speech - protected from government censorship and legislative prohibition. That doesn't condone it nor does it protect its purveyors from public criticism and discrimination. I've already indicated I find that kind of stuff disrespectful and you've never seen me use it here in this forum.

You can and should criticize the worst of it, just don't use it to "tar" all political speech coming from the President's political opponents as being "racist" - or imply that because they don't care to join you in your denunciations that they must also be racists.

[Jimaz]

Attachment 11007
Obama tells Leno he’ll keep bypassing Congress

• Part 1/3
• Part 2/3
• Part 3/3

[oladub]

Jimaz, Jay Leno treats the President with respect allowing him to promote himself while putting a positive spin on his own presidency. However, every president's acts are subject to scrutiny.

The following is from from my post which you buried under all the Thom Hartman videos:

"I received the following message from BarackObama.com. :

"Now that each and every Senate Republican has vowed to block measures that would create jobs,President Obama is not going to wait for them to rebuild the economy and bring financial security back to the middle class.

Today, he announced new rules on federal mortgages to prevent more families from losing their homes to foreclosure. And that's just the beginning -- the President said he would continue to make the changes he can by executive action, while continuing to urge Congress to act on legislation to strengthen the economy and create jobs.

If Congress doesn't act, he will -- because millions of Americans can't just wait for Congress to do their jobs. That's why thousands of you have been calling and tweeting your representatives over the past month, joining the President in sending a message to lawmakers in Washington that they need to act now."

This is an admission, proudly stated, that the President is and intends to bypass Congress to legislate change. He has already bombed Libya without consulting Congress. Attorney General Holder has announced that he had given orders not to enforce certain laws. The Administration recently executed an American kid without a trial and won't detail it's criteria for such executions of Americans. Now, the President is going to legislate his change. Clearly, the President has now broken his oath of office on multiple fronts. I wouldn't call him a dictator, at least not compared with some, but these are all dictatorial acts."

In the first video, the President tries to take credit for getting the troops out of Iraq when in fact the Iraqi parliament ordered US troops out by the end of this year back in 2008. Obama had been trying to keep them there longer but Iraq demanded the right to prosecute US troops. He is disingenuous. Kucinich called Obama's bombing of Libya an impeachable offense but the President, in this interview claims the right to intervene in the affairs of other countries. The President also claimed the American kid he assassinated without involving the court system was the second most dangerous person in Al-Queda which seems preposterous. Then of course, he goes on to say that he will legislate things by executive order such as his Wall Street bankers' bailout of underwater loans.

[rb336]

He has stated that he will "when possible." Executive action is a long-standing tradition, and you cannot challenge it as a concept -- you can only challenge specific actions taken. as far as Libya -- the NATO treaties support the action - an apriori consent decree. the law supports it fully, whether you or I do makes no difference.

[Bong-Man]

My recent favorite is "Obama just lost the Iraq war that Bush won". Meanwhile, our actions in Libya were the result of a good game plan that came from good intel. Not an American soldier hit the ground, a dictator was overthrown by his own people, and it cost us a pittance. Yet not one Repugnant could stop the assault for a minute and be objective enough to say, "Good job Mr. President".....because no matter your political leanings, it was !!

[Bobl]

"The old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering...Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred." - FDR

He was elected four times.

[Mikeg]

My recent favorite is "Obama just lost the Iraq war that Bush won". Meanwhile, our actions in Libya were the result of a good game plan that came from good intel. Not an American soldier hit the ground, a dictator was overthrown by his own people, and it cost us a pittance. Yet not one Repugnant could stop the assault for a minute and be objective enough to say, "Good job Mr. President".....because no matter your political leanings, it was !!

Attachment 11008

Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and
US President Barack Obama
greet each other with a handshake,
July 9, 2009

20 months after that photo was taken, President Obama was "leading from behind" a "kinetic military action" for the purpose of "protecting the lives of Libyan civilians".

On March 28, 2011, President Obama addressed the American people saying,

.....in just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a No Fly Zone with our allies and partners......

So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do.

.......there is no question that Libya - and the world - will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

So by March 28th, the American people were being told by their President that "the United States of America has done what we said we would do" and that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."

Six months later, on Sept. 29, 2011, Gaddafi was in hiding and no longer in control of Libya. That day, US Senator Mark Kirk [[R-Ill.) was in Tripoli meeting with members of the Libyian National Transitional Council when he said, “Unquestioned kudos goes to the president and his team......this was a success by President Obama and his team." [source]

If that doesn't sound like a Republican saying "Good job Mr. President", I don't know what is.

However, "our military mission" and its kinetic actions continued into October until Gaddafi and his tight circle of tribe members were finally killed. So somewhere between March 28th and October 20th, President Obama must have either changed his mind about regime change in Libya or it can be explained by the mantra "Obama Lied, Gaddafi Died"!

[maxx]

The fact that the statments of someone like Hank Williams Jr. are noticed at all or considered important by a significant part of the US population does not speak well for us.

[rb336]

So by March 28th, the American people were being told by their President that "the United States of America has done what we said we would do" and that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."

However, "our military mission" and its kinetic actions continued into October until Gaddafi and his tight circle of tribe members were finally killed. So somewhere between March 28th and October 20th, President Obama must have either changed his mind about regime change in Libya or it can be explained by the mantra "Obama Lied, Gaddafi Died"!

We weren't doing the regime change -- we supported the Libyan people, who were.

[Papasito]

At least America did a better job with Libya then they did with the bay of pigs

[rb336]

At least America did a better job with Libya then they did with the bay of pigs

I've always thought the disaster that was the Bay of Pigs paved the way for the USSR to back down in the Cuban Missle Crisis [[they withdrew upon receiving assurances that the US would not invade Cuba)

[Mikeg]

We weren't doing the regime change -- we supported the Libyan people, who were.

Back in March, President Obama told the American people that US and NATO forces were taking military action to protect the Libyan people from Gaddafi and his army and that it would be a mistake to broaden their mission to include "regime change".

By early October, the only fighting going on was between the NTC "militants" and Gaddafi's "bitter-enders" in Sirte, which by then had been abandoned by its populace [source]. Why was NATO still conducting air strikes on Sirte as late as October 20th if they weren't supposed to be doing "regime change"? Who was NATO supposedly protecting on the 20th when they fired on a fleeing convoy of vehicles?

[oladub]

rb post #16 "He has stated that he will "when possible." Executive action is a long-standing tradition, and you cannot challenge it as a concept -- you can only challenge specific actions taken. as far as Libya -- the NATO treaties support the action - an apriori consent decree. the law supports it fully, whether you or I do makes no difference."

Tradition? Maybe gunboat diplomacy and corruption, if carried out by enough presidents, becomes tradition. The Constitution be damned; we have traditions. NATO’s charter only allows such actions if one of it’s members is attacked. Which Nato country did Libya attack? The Constitution, for it’s part, only allows Congress to declare wars. Bombing a foreign capitol is an act of war however anyone sugarcoats it.

The Constitution also grants Congress, not the President, all legislative powers. Presidents aren’t supposed to be legislating and spending with executive orders. Technically, only Congress can draw money from the Treasury so Congress wouldn’t have to fund Obama’s executive orders.

Article. I., Section. 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 1, Section 9: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law

“When possible” keeps being redefined so that more and more is possible. If Obama conducts wars, chooses to not enforce laws he doesn’t like, assassinates Americans without trials, and more recently legislated spending programs to benefit bankers and buy student support outside of Constitutional channels, what will he do next that you will also go along with? What exactly, is Congress’ role now that presidents are legislating more and more of what they want when Congress doesn’t act like a rubber stamp?