Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Respect

"A man meets with no more respect than he exacts." ~ William Hazlitt

It is so much fun to watch the Democrats go after their own! And especially fun when they attack Obama.

I don't know how to imbed the video in this story, but go here and watch the video.

It was simply a joke, and it was funny. The first commentator acknowledged that fact.

But then, apparently realizing how his remarks might be misconstrued as a defense of Carville, he quickly added a reminder that such jokes, when told about Obama, are in poor taste.

Well, naturally, the fawning Obama lapdogs over at CNN wouldn't want to offend their dear leader, now, would they? Their slobbering love affair with Obama continues despite the mountain of evidence that he is attempting to destroy our country.

Well, they say love is blind, but in the media's case, it's also deaf and dumb.

The second commentator made a very good point:

Where was all that feigned outrage when Liberals insulted President Bush at every turn? Every day, for 8 years, we had to endure the vitriol and disrespectful attacks on the President of the United States, and no one on the left had the cajones or the grace to say, "Wait a minute. We're supposed to respect the office of the Presidency".

Not once, in 8 years, did any leftist Liberal media spokesman offer even the most innocuous defense of the president.

Now, as the third commentator rightly pointed out, we're supposed to have respect for the office, even if we don't like the President himself.

That's truth about Liberals number 5 in spades: The only standards Liberals have are double standards.

But, I must say I agree with the third commentator.

We must respect the office of the president of the United States.

I believe the best way to respect the office of the President is to throw the current occupant (who demonstrates no respect for the office himself) out on his oversized ear.

37 comments:

Edwin Drood said...

I remember right after Bush was elected, Comedy Central came out with a show "Thats my Bush", the show made fun of the first lady and Bush's daughters and everyone else. They had to discontinue it only after 9-11 when the public wouldn't stand for it. I don't remember the press even covering it. Then you had the Dixie Chicks who were applauded for their free speech. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Comedy Central again with the cartoon "Little Bush". Even Oliver Stone got in on the act making a movie that had no respect at all for the office of President. Yet no one complained then. Foreign film makers even made a movie about he assignation of Bush. Still no complaints from CNN, MSNBC, NYT.

That doesn't even include all the times liberals burned Bush in effigy during "non-violent" protests. Compared to the Tea Party's one sign one-out-of-a-thousands sign that may have been in poor taste.


Obama's treated like a princess compared to the Lefts spewing hatred for Bush.

Jim said...

"Obama's treated like a princess compared to the Lefts spewing hatred for Bush." Laughable.

You might want to watch the movie "W". It's not what you think.

Edwin Drood said...

"Laughable" not an argument, its not anything.

I've never seen W, or any Oliver Stone movie. That being said I gave plenty of other examples.

Jim said...

Laughable is my opinion of your comment. You don't have to like it.

Regarding "W", it's an interesting movie and not disrespectful of the office of the president. It is not a Bush bash.

Mark said...

I would submit that the title of the movie alone is disrespectful to President Bush. We all know he was referred to as simply, "W" by his critics as a sign of disrespect.

It's the same reason I disrespect Obama by refusing to refer to him as "President". He doesn't deserve my respect. As long as he disrespects his own office, why should I?

Jim said...

"We all know he was referred to as simply, "W" by his critics as a sign of disrespect."

We all know this? I disagree. I watched the so-called liberal media and read Daily Kos, Media Matters, and MoveOn during Bush's two terms, and don't remember any negative use of "W". I also did some web research and I can find nothing that suggests that "W" was regularly used in a derogatory way.

"As long as he disrespects his own office, why should I?"

You suppose President Obama disrespects the office of President, but you can provide no substantive proof of this.

And then you give yourself away. Asserting that you disrespect the office because of the person who holds it belies your implication that you can separate the two. The office of the Presidency has endured since Washington. If you think you can turn respect for the office on and off, then you really don't respect the office at all. Ever. Otherwise you're a hypocrite, right?

Joe said...

Jim: Your comments consistantly seem to be among the most arrogant, condescending, self-agrandising, snobby, false-pride filled on the web.

"...don't remember any negative use of 'W'..."

You were not paying attention. In fact, many, many liberal/progressives refered to him as "dubaya," with a scornful tone in their voices.

Next time, search the comments of folks like: Keith Olberman, Rachael Maddow, Bill Maher and many, many other lefties.

Edwin Drood said...

To liberals the treatment of Obama seems worse than Bush because they know the criticism of Bush was empty name calling. "Bush is dump", "Cheney is evil", stuff like that. With Obama, you can criticize him with actual substance. We can easily point to where he was wrong with the bailouts, healthcare, TARP. We can actually quantify his failure in the form of record unemployment, despite record spending. Cost of healthcare going up, despite record spending and legislation.

It just seems worse because liberals had to paint or re-brand Bush as a failure whereas Obama can be proven a failure using mathematics and quantifiable measurements.


Of course liberals like Jim will just reply with "that stupids", "you're wrong", "laughable" etc... Which of course is just substance-less drivel. Always has been

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...

ED, TARP was Bush. Repeat after me: TARP was Bush. Many believe that TARP was effective. Usually those who think it wasn't also think Obama did TARP.

According to the libtard Wall Street Journal much of TARP has been repaid and the program has been successful. The US Treasury estimates that the final cost of TARP will be about $105 billion.

The GM and Chrysler bailouts appear to be achieving positive results with returns to US Tax payers.

So you can't really "point out where he was wrong" on either of these. You can suggest that you disagree, but not where he was on the whole wrong.

With health care, it's too early to tell. It was only signed into law earlier this year and it will take time to fully take effect. No way to prove that health care was wrong. It may need tweaking. So what?

Jim said...

"Jim: Your comments consistantly seem to be among the most arrogant, condescending, self-agrandising, snobby, false-pride filled on the web."

Umm, really? On the entire web? "Seem to be"? I think you forgot "godless" and "unamerican".

In 2004 I saw numerous bumper stickers with "W" on them. Were those folks being scornful toward the person they were supporting for president?

You're way off here, Joe. I simply brought up a movie that I thought was pretty fair towards Bush. There were warts but it was unexpectedly "light" on any bashing.

I guess that's pretty arrogant on my part. You know, to express an opinion.

Edwin Drood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edwin Drood said...

TARP was started under Bush and extended to Obama, Obama then gave us TARP II.

Thanks for making my point though. Bush's TARP (which was a bad idea) didn't fail too miserably, we actually saw some ROI, Obama's was a complete 100% failure as predicted.

This is a perfect example of being able to criticize Obama using measurable criteria.

Auto Bailouts have not produced any ROI for the taxpayer. Just because some money came in doesn't mean it was a good idea. I bought $500 in six flags stock before they went bankrupt. Last year it paid out $100, that doesn't make it wise investment in hind site.

Healthcare is going up an average of 15% for everyone next year. The plan was to lower the cost of health care. 15% is not a small increase it's not too early to tell that a shift in the wrong direction is a huge fail.

Edwin Drood said...

A small tweek would be:

Cost of healthcare only went down 3% and we were hoping for a larger decrease.

A total failure is:

I promise this law (which I have not read) will greatly reduce the cost of healthcare. Oh my bad it shifted in the wrong direction and got more expensive. Just wait four more years when the whole thing kicks in.

Ohh wait, by that time the new taxes will kick in so the cost really wont ever go down at all. Thank God I scheduled that to be after my re-election. Just don't watch fox new or listen to talk radio, because they will tell you how bad I failed.

Jim said...

"This is a perfect example of being able to criticize Obama using measurable criteria. "

Really? Can you provide me your source for details on TARP II and that measurable criteria?

Jim said...

"The plan was to lower the cost of health care."

"I promise this law (which I have not read) will greatly reduce the cost of healthcare."

Except that your premise is not reality based. Nobody EVER said that the cost of health care would be reduced at all, much less "greatly" reduced. I challenge you to provide any citation to support your premise. The expectation was and is that the rate of increase in the cost of health care would be lower over time and that over 20 years the deficit would be reduced by over $1.3 trillion. I don't believe you can provide any proof that this is untrue much less a total failure.

Mark said...

"Nobody EVER said that the cost of health care would be reduced at all"

Then what's the point of Obamacare?

It's all smoke and mirrors, Jim. Surely a man of your intelligence can see that.

He pushes for massive reform of the nation's health system, which causes massive tax increases and will bring the citizenry under crippling governmental control to make the average citizen think they are going to get free health care.

Nothing could be further than the truth. Obamacare will drastically affect the quality of health care in this country and increase health care costs at the same time.

Respect the office. Throw the crook out.

Trader Rick said...

Jim: Your comments consistantly seem to be among the most arrogant, condescending, self-agrandising, snobby, false-pride filled on the web."

Umm, really? On the entire web? "Seem to be"? I think you forgot "godless" and "unamerican".

Yeah, not seem to be---"are". I'll add the "Godless and UnAmarican" for you , "Jim" No worries.

Edwin Drood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edwin Drood said...

I was going to write some long explanation with many examples of how health care overhaul as a complete and total failure thus making our President a complete and total failure, but instead Im just going to put some links where a bunch of Libs call Obama a failure.


The Promise:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95204017

""We'll cut the cost of a typical family's health care by up to $2,500 per year,"


The Result
More expensive for our nation:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-22-health-care-costs_N.htm

More expensive for the employer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111906270.html

More expensive for the individual:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/17/politics/main6306991.shtml

epic mathematical measurable fail

---------------------------------------
For more examples of why Obama is a total failure.

http://www.moveleft.org/obamas_promises/index.html


The whole point of this remember is to show why:

-it's so easy to criticize Obama
-criticism of Obama has much more substance than the liberal's (meaningless drivel) criticism of Bush.

Jim said...

The "Promise" was during the campaign and was no doubt predicated on the best possible plan with single-payer or public options available. Since the Republicans blocked this at every step of the way, the ACA is what could be passed and does not rise to the campaign "promise". It IS projected to slow the increase in health care costs over time. Is this a total failure?

"More expensive for our nation". Maybe. Hard to tell, reports are conflicting, estimates vary. But over 34 million more Americans will be covered.

"More expensive for the employer". The article you cited does not include ONE MENTION of the ACA much less attribute one cent of additional costs to it. The lead paragraph says:

The cost to employers of providing health benefits soared 6.9 percent on average this year, according to a national survey released last week, an increase some experts say was driven by the growing use of expensive imaging devices in hospitals and an expanding population of aging and obese patients suffering from chronic conditions.

"More expensive for the individual". This is not fully supported by the link you've given which says in part:

"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true."

"epic mathematical measurable fail". Not really. It's clear to me that you've used Google to come up with "proof" of Obama's "failures" and simply provide links without reading the full content. Case in point is the article purporting to "prove" that ACA is more expensive to employers. The article never mentions ACA.

Furthermore, you call these "sources" a "bunch of Liberals" because they are not Fox, NewsMax or the Washington Times.

As to your grand finale, I like that site. Never seen it before. I would have like to have seen it for other presidents, especially after less than two years in office.

Surely Obama is the first president in history to not fulfill every campaign promise he made. [snark]

"it's so easy to criticize Obama". Of course it is. I and my liberal friends do so all the time. But for the most part we criticize him on substance not on phony crap.

"criticism of Obama has much more substance than the liberal's (meaningless drivel) criticism of Bush".

Yeah, right.

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edwin Drood said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Edwin Drood said...

Jim its telling that you think Obama was going to make healthcare available for everyone by making it more expensive.

You should stick to brainless attacks, logic and reasoning are not your strong suit.

Edwin Drood said...

Jim it's not that Obama is not keeping his promises, it's that he got elected promising everything to everyone while saying nothing at all. Many of us capable of higher order reasoning pointed out that he was an empty suit with no real substance. Unable to speak without a TelePrompTer was a huge hint.

Now we get the privilege of say "I told you so"

He's had two years, half a term to do something, anything and has failed. Not one single tangible thing has gotten better.

Compare this to Bush; Bush was blamed for a recession two months into his 1st term and 9/11 was his fault because it happened on his watch (he wasn't even one year into his term). Well our current crisis happened and has gotten worse on Obama's watch. The only difference is unlike Bush, Obama was in the Senate for years before he took office, none of this should have been a surprise to him. But he never had a job where he would be held responsible for his decisions, before this he would vote with congress and never have to own any law or decision.

It's really starting to show that Obama's lack of executive decision-making skills is dragging our county down. Thank God we no longer have a congress that worships his every misinformed word.

Jim said...

"its telling that you think Obama was going to make healthcare available for everyone by making it more expensive."

This statement is simply nonsense and deserves no further response.

"Unable to speak without a TelePrompTer was a huge hint."

This is a made up crock of s**t criticism. Everybody uses a teleprompter except for the ones who write on their hands. Obama writes his own speeches for the most part. So what if he doesn't memorize them. He speaks without a teleprompter at town halls, press conferences, and interviews after delivering prepared remarks from a teleprompter. This criticism is bulls**t and evidence of the dirth of substantive criticism in your arsenal. Stick to criticizing policy rather than style. Otherwise, give it up.

Edwin Drood said...

Jim you gave up along time ago. Be a good liberal, follow blindly and don't ask questions

Jim said...

"Be a good liberal, follow blindly and don't ask questions"

Another dumb-ass comment. Proof.

Trader Rick said...

Jim you gave up along time ago. Be a good liberal, follow blindly and don't ask questions

Jim said...

idem

Trader Rick said...

You know, to be a liberal, you have to be totally devoid of any common sense or logic or reason...

OR

You have to hate America, her people and heritage.

Still, there are Liberals out there that are educated and/or intelligent. Can't we get one of them to be our whipping boy instead of "Jim"?

I just think we deserve better.

Pamela D. Hart said...

Jim said: The "Promise" was during the campaign and was no doubt predicated on the best possible plan with single-payer or public options available. Since the Republicans blocked this at every step of the way, ...

Jim: May I ask, how did the Republicans block anything, let alone every step of the way, when the Democrats had CONTROL of the House AND the Senate?

I normally don’t interfere when I’m this late into the discussion, but I need to know the answer to that question. Thank you for your time.

Mark said...

Pamela, I noticed that, too, but I've learned it's useless to try to talk common sense to a Liberal.

Jim said...

Pam, I'm going to assume your question is a serious one and I will address it respectfully. As I'm sure you know from civics or Schoolhouse Rock, it takes both houses of Congress to pass a bill and send it to the president to sign into law.

Now, I'm assuming you don't know the next part or you wouldn't ask the question. While it is true that the Democrats had majorities in both houses, because of Senate rules, the Senate does not operate on "majority rules". It operates on super-majority rules. Even if Democrats have a majority, bills can't get an up or down vote unless 60 Senators allow it.

Since Norm Coleman of Minnesota kept suing the State to overturn the election of Al Franken for 8 months, the Democrats in the Senate of the 111th congress did not have 60 members until June 30th 2009. The Congress recesses for the month of August and then Ted Kennedy died August 25th 2009.

So the Democrats only had a super majority for effectively 31 days while Congress was in session.

Therefore, the Democrats only had "control" of congress for 31 days. (Not really because that assumes they are in session every day of the week, which they aren't.)

The Democrats managed to accomplish a lot in the 111th Congress, but it was a struggle and they couldn't get everything they wanted because for the most part, every single solitary Republican in both houses of Congress said, "Hell no we won't!"

Edwin Drood said...

"Hell no we won't vote" for a bill that no one has ever read.

Jim said...

"Hell no we won't vote" for a bill that no one has ever read.

Bulls**t. The average congressman has 14 people on their staff and the average senator has 34 to study and analyze all legislation. While it is possible that some members have not read the entire bill, it is nonsense for any one of them to assert that they can't vote on a bill because they don't know what's in it. If they don't either they or their staff is derelict of duty.

Most of the ACA and other major bills passed by congress in the past two years or before them now have been studied and debated for months if not years. The claim that there's not enough time to read these bills or that members haven't "read" them is just Republican obstructionist bulls**t.