It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Stomps off Stage Upset

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
df1

posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
I am appalled at the lack of respect for the office of president of the United States garners in the media and here.


Respect is earned, none comes with the title of president. I appalled at your suggestion that it should.

Unwarranted and undeserved reverence by the media is one of primary reasons that america is a mess. The media does not slam these turkeys enough and its all because of folks like yourself that get on bended knee to a title.
.




posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Respect is earned, none comes with the title of president. I appalled at your suggestion that it should.


I totally agree with this statement, this ain't a dictatorship, you don't give respect just because somebody holds a position of authority. Hell, if our ancestors did that we would never have gained independence. It's a government of the people by the people, which means the President is supposed to be one of us, not above us, his title is enough respect, we will not kneel before our so called "leaders," and this is what makes us great.

-Attero



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Dear Johannoman, if you take a look at American politics going back to some of the very first races you find that mud slinging is a time-honored tradition. You seem to have that naive notion that many do that America is this virgin saint country. 1. Weve engaged in wars to take over territory from another, the Mexican war was used to annex, California, and much of the now SW US, and we repeatedly broke treaties with virtually all of the native Americans for similar reasons. 3. Weve engaged in explict racist policies time and time again, Blacks as slaves, Chinese who built much of the railroads were explicitly barred from becoming full fledged citizens, Japanese were rounded up and intered and their property lost durring WWII. 4. During the Joesph McCarthy period Communist paranoia ran rampant and roughshod over people's lives and fundamental civil rights. 5. During the building of the railroads virtually the entire congress was run by 'Credit Mobilier', giving lucrative contracts and subsidies in exchange for shares in Credit Mobilier. Currently our leaders are bought and paid for by large corporations of America.

Johannoman, please take off the rose colored glasses. Try to see America first for what it is, only then can you begin efforts to make it what you think it should be.

Probably one of the things that helps to keep corruption down is a loud and vocal public that yells 'FOUL' when they see one.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Jhannmon
Liar, Thief, these are generalizations of a persons character not facts or incidents being reported on say that the president is a liar and a thief is to defame the office of president


Everything I say about George Bush is my opinion , its common knowledge to anyone who is really in the know
Type George Bush liar, George bush thief, into a search engine and see what you get!


I will give you this warning. As you judge you will be judged. The hatred you are harboring will harm you most of all.

Very true, but sorry to disappoint you. I dont hate anyone, even Liars and thieves
I just have no respect for them,
Now if you dont mind can we get back to the point of this thread


external image


[edit on 10-7-2004 by Sauron]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
I will give you this warning. As you judge you will be judged.


These quasi religious views are fine. Love one another. But its one thing to be kind and forgiving to Bush as another human being but quite another to extend this forgiveness to his ability to run a country. One MUST judge his ability to govern the country or risk economic and social anarchy should his and his teams' skills be found deficient. Would you allow the Bush team steer policy in a direction which would cause immense suffering to others without standing tall? Of course not. Forgive his deficiencies, sure, but remember the power of the office has the ability to cause incredible harm if not wieled wisely.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
I will give you this warning. As you judge you will be judged.


These quasi religious views are fine. Love one another. But its one thing to be kind and forgiving to Bush as another human being but quite another to extend this forgiveness to his ability to run a country. One MUST judge his ability to govern the country or risk economic and social anarchy should his and his teams' skills be found deficient. Would you allow the Bush team steer policy in a direction which would cause immense suffering to others without standing tall? Of course not. Forgive his deficiencies as a man, sure, but remember the power of the office has the ability to cause incredible harm if not wielded wisely.

[edit on 10-7-2004 by Romeo]

[edit on 10-7-2004 by Romeo]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon

On the thread topic I would like to also say that if I were questioned about a relationship I have or had with a man who was just indited I would not answer either for fear of falsely implicating myself or of having my words twisted to mean something they were not intended to. Better to keep silent and let things play out then write about in my autobiography or something. Truly this is smart politics.

[edit on 10-7-2004 by Johannmon]



that's what the phrase 'no comment' is for. if you get out for a press conference, a *scheduled* press conference in the white house briefing room no less, you don't storm out, you participate in the conference. our "leader" is responsible to the people and has a duty to answer to a free press... or is this not america?

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Bush did not get the popular vote and therefore needs to even work harder on "GAINING" respect from the "free" people of the United States. Free speech seems to roll down from the top. As far as I can see the actions of VP and CEO of America are in response to not having any rebuttle to honest probing questions about real issues.

You know now that I am on a rant:

Who gives a s**t about the Iraqis before finding out where peoples retirement funds are and all the lost jobs and business failures due to Enron. The War has sure generated jobs alright, the jobs you get paid $500 a month to die over.

[edit on 10-7-2004 by IntelRetard]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Doesnt that just look hilarious to you!?!?!? HAHhehehehehehehe!! The secret service, or his advisors, or whatever probably came up, and told him he lost oil in Iraq.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   


Johannoman try not to be so Naive

I am neither niave about the history of the USA nor do I see this coutntry through rose colored glasses. What I do see is a decay of decency and respect in the nation that threatens the moral fabric of our society. While this country has done its share ill through its history we have also held up a sense of deceny and decorum. You did not go around publicly proclaiming that our president was an Idiot, liar, Thief Fool a***ole or other vulgar references. You may critiqued policy or even competence but you would have done so without crossing the line into rank name calling. That is the contrast between today and then and it is indicative of the state and direction of our society. You can try to attack my objectivity but in doing so you only expose your own bias for I have no adjenda and have asked no one to support president bush in the coming elections. I have simply been pointing out the level of indecency that people so quickly sink to in this kind of discussion and its depth of depravity and danger to our society.




Respect is earned, none comes with the title of president. I appalled at your suggestion that it should.


The basic respect due to the office of President is confered and earned upon election. Those who did not vote for the President still owe a certain amount of respect to the office even though it may not be filled with their man. This does not require bowing or genuflecting or even liking the man in the office. Simply give respect were it is due. Unfortunately many in this nation have forgotten the value of respect and even how to show it.


One MUST judge his ability to govern the country or risk economic and social anarchy should his and his teams' skills be found deficient.


I am in absolute agreement with the above statement and think that civil dispute and disagreement is neccessary and essential to the proper functioning of a democracy BUT when that disageement crosses the line to bitter personal attacks and blanket name calling aspersions it has crossed a very dangerous line and needs to be channelled into more constructive and corrective formats or we risk sinking our nation to that level of rankor.

On anotherl note I would like to say that walking off the stage is more effective and a better statement than the often incriminating and loaded words "no comment"




our "leader" is responsible to the people and has a duty to answer to a free press... or is this not america?


The President is not responsible to answer every line of questioning whenever it is brought up. He has full discression as to when and where and even how to answer whatever is asked, knowing that there are political consequences for the over use of stonewall tactics.

To put this into another light, if you had a friend who was just indited and reporters wanted to ask you leading questions about him would you want to stand there and answer them? I would not and if this was a good friend of mine I might even be emotional about it. Whatever Ken Lay was or wasn't responsible for he was an associate of the Bush administration but this does not make Bush or his cabinet culpable for Lay's crimes any more than being friends with people who are drug addicts makes me a dealer.




Free speech seems to roll down from the top.


And the freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak when the subject is one you do not wish to discuss at the time. Good to see the president exercising the right you were asking for.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
From the actual article on the radically left leaning Capital Hill Blue, I tend to think that most of the adjectives are just one reporter's negatively biased interpretation of what may have actually occurred. Unless there is actual video of the new conference, I will just dismiss that article as I do most of the other articles on that blatantly Pro Democrat/Pro Kerry/Anti Republican/Anti Bush web site.

I wouldn't stoop to actually believing their description as fact.



A clearly-rattled President George W. Bush walked out of a media briefing Thursday




The President, visibly upset, stomped off the stage


www.capitolhillblue.com...

Not having seen the briefing, as none of you detractors have either, it is entirely plausible that the following report I made up could describe the same briefing...naturally I don't have the negative view of the president as most/all of the commentors on this thread to-date:

After President Bush completed his question/answer session with reporters, he continued on his way without acknowledging questions shouted after him in regard to the endictment of Kenneth Lay, which many say was a friend of his.

The President, sad to hear that his purported friend was indicted, asked his press secretary, Scott McClellan to deal with those questions.

That is just as likely, and when viewing the shameless negative bias in the Capital Hill Blue articles, is probably closer to the actual truth of what actually happened.

I don't take any subjective descriptions provided by that web site "clearly rattled", "visibly upset", "stomped off" as even be close to the objective truth. The single photo they provide can't possibly be construed to be "stomping off". Do you REALLY think he "stomped off" the stage?

Also, by the way, apparently Bush is gaining in the poles against Kerry...since he chose the guy a couple months ago he described as unworthy to become president, I guess we have to figure no one else actually worthy could be found to run with him...



The US president, George Bush, is running slightly ahead of his Democratic rival, John Kerry, according to a voter poll released today 7/9/04


Article Link

I hope this move continues...



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Well, due to his position and the trust afforded to this man, he is held to a higher standard. He is voted into office by the People and he can be voted out of office by the People.

I see corruption every day. I've seen what power does to people and have watched as people became corrupt due to the authority they welded, careers destroyed due to man's greed. The cover-ups used to distract attention away from this greed.

Bush, jr. is a screw up. His father has obviously come to his aid on more than one occasion. Military records miraculously disappear. Only bits and pieces are available. Fill in the blanks. Sure, no-one likes to air their dirty laundry in public, but when the evidence outweighs common sense, and people still refuse to see the smoke, you gotta knida wonder what the mentality of the "average joe" is. How many times do you need to get hit in the head with a 2 x 4 before you duck?

These people are big money. They aren't "normal" hard working people. Unless you too have come from 'big money" you can never relate to their way of thinking.

You are probrably a very smart, caring considerate person who would never dream of getting over on someone. Because of this, you see all the potential good in people, you are blinded by your ideal.






[edit on 10-7-2004 by mako0956]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Bush may be "gaining in popularity" in the polls, however that doesn't mean it is "positive popularity".



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   


Because of this, you see all the potential good in people, you are blinded by your ideal.


Helllo!!!! I suggest your read again my posts. They deal with the type of attacks that have been made on the president and how these are indicative of a state of moral decay in the country. I also commented that I would walk out if questioned in a similar fashion. I have not however made any arguments supporting the Bush administration or its policies. Yet you are calling me blind and unable to view the president objectively. What that I have written leads you to this conclusion? Have I sang rosy praises of the president glossing over his faults and ignoring his weaknesses? NO! I see him for what he is and let it stand at that. My comments concern those who are so partisan that they see partisanship in everyone else. By assuming partisanship on my part, you reveal your motives and allegances and also show how they color your perception and reasoning.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Here is some reading matterial Johannoman, to inform you of past campaign pleasantries.

[US campaign begins to get dirty: BBC]
news.bbc.co.uk...

"John Quincy Adams was nicknamed 'The Pimp' by the campaign of his opponent General Andrew Jackson."

"Adams' supporters hit back with a pamphlet which claimed: "General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute brought to this country by British solders! She afterwards married a mulatto man with whom she had several children of which number General Jackson is one!!" Jackson won anyway."

Nixon carried on with his [dirty] tricks on the 1972 campaign when the Democrats' headquarters in the Watergate building were broken into. The discovery did not stop him from winning the election that year but it did have somewhat serious consequences subsequently, showing that to be dirty is not necessarily to be smart.

[More mud: People who bemoan negative campaigning need a history lesson]
www.portlandphoenix.com...

"In 1800, for instance, when Republican Thomas Jefferson ran for president, Federalists, on behalf of their candidate, John Adams, distributed a leaflet portraying Jefferson as a fraud, a cheat, and a coward who was the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto . . ."



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Daddy's going to spank him tonight


df1

posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon


Respect is earned, none comes with the title of president. I appalled at your suggestion that it should.


The basic respect due to the office of President is confered and earned upon election. Those who did not vote for the President still owe a certain amount of respect to the office even though it may not be filled with their man. This does not require bowing or genuflecting or even liking the man in the office. Simply give respect were it is due. Unfortunately many in this nation have forgotten the value of respect and even how to show it.


The president is nothing more than a public servant, he deserves no more or less respect than the white house janitor, unless it is earned by his actions. I am dismayed that you set the bar for respect so low, it is no wonder that we are left with the present 2 candidates.

Tell me, what would a president need to do inorder for him to lose your respect?
.


[edit on 11-7-2004 by df1]



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1


Tell me, what would a president need to do inorder for him to lose your respect?
.


[edit on 11-7-2004 by df1]


The simple answer to that is impeachment. I may not respect the man but I will give respect to the office as long as it is held. To say that the president is the same as the janitor is just rediculous. The president is set in a position of authority over this nation. Like it or not that is the way it is. To say that giving respect to the office of president is setting the bar low is silly as well. If any office or position in this country is due respect it is the one which you only obtain only by a consensus of the 50 state electoral college vote. If the office of president does not warrant respect then no office in the country does and you have no basis for the rule of law. No one should respect a sheriff, a teacher, a mayor, a fireman, a building inspector ect. Without respect for an office and for the authority that it weilds you have anarchy were everything is subjective to the popular opinion of the the one holding the office. It is akin to saying that because I don't like a judge in a courtroom and think him an idiot that I can get away with cussing him out during a trial. That is not the rule of law. Neither is it a sound foundation of a civilized society. This respect in no way precludes critiquing the man who holds an office but it does prescibe a proper manner and method by which those critiques should be rendered.

If you want to go on sounding like a fool by making rediculous arguments comparing the office of the president with a janitor go ahead but I will no long waste my time responding to that kind of tripe.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
Here is some reading matterial Johannoman, to inform you of past campaign pleasantries.



Thank you for the post on past problems in the American electoral system. It is of interest I am sure to those who are unaware of American history. I am aware of the fact that there have been some historically dirty campaigns. If you know your history you will also recognize that there have been long periods where the campaigns for the highest office in the country have been heated but did not cross the line to abject insults and generalizations. It is terribly annoying when those who know a little history try to use that little knowledge to confuse a sound principle. The principle is that when America has been at its best there has been a resulting respect for her officers and officials. Conversely when America has been at her worst and most tumultuous the pig slop flies indiscriminately. Now you may ask which came first the cart or the horse in this case, the respect or the high times in America. In truth they seem to run concurrent. However, the times when respect for officials was high was not always in times of prosperity. If fact times of prosperity seem to breed this moral decay where as times of economic hardship and war breed respect and moral fortitude. Maybe it is because as a prosperous nation we become beligerent and decadent and as a needy or fearful nation we turn to our leadership for comfort and protection. Either way my intention with all this posting is to point out the current trend toward slop throwing and to warn that the loss of respect for our elected officials is a sign of a negative trend in our history.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon

Originally posted by df1


Tell me, what would a president need to do inorder for him to lose your respect?
.


[edit on 11-7-2004 by df1]


The simple answer to that is impeachment. I may not respect the man but I will give respect to the office as long as it is held. To say that the president is the same as the janitor is just rediculous. The president is set in a position of authority over this nation. Like it or not that is the way it is. To say that giving respect to the office of president is setting the bar low is silly as well. If any office or position in this country is due respect it is the one which you only obtain only by a consensus of the 50 state electoral college vote. If the office of president does not warrant respect then no office in the country does and you have no basis for the rule of law. No one should respect a sheriff, a teacher, a mayor, a fireman, a building inspector ect. Without respect for an office and for the authority that it weilds you have anarchy were everything is subjective to the popular opinion of the the one holding the office. It is akin to saying that because I don't like a judge in a courtroom and think him an idiot that I can get away with cussing him out during a trial. That is not the rule of law. Neither is it a sound foundation of a civilized society. This respect in no way precludes critiquing the man who holds an office but it does prescibe a proper manner and method by which those critiques should be rendered.

If you want to go on sounding like a fool by making rediculous arguments comparing the office of the president with a janitor go ahead but I will no long waste my time responding to that kind of tripe.


i think the idea was that the president is a servant just as much as a white house janitor is a servant.

so... a president would have to be impeached before you lost respect for him? isn't that saying you'd allow congress to decide whether or not you respect the man? "he's worthy of respect so long as he's not impeached?" that sounds completely contrary to the ideals of a democracy, and you dishonor your self and those who fought to keep the presidency from being a divinely ordained monarchy by prostituting your opinion so. you can respect the country, but politicians are just people, and political offices just jobs. i'll respect the office and the man if i think they are helping the country, and it's everyone's right not to if they don't.

disrespecting an office doesn't mean disobeying the office (although i believe the law gives us some rights even there). it's ridiculous to suppose the world will fall into anarchy if we vigorously question our politicians, and expect them to have the decency to remember who they are responsible to. if the office of the presidency is to be considered high and mighty, it is only because it must withstand the force of public opinion- at all times.

-koji K.

[edit on 11-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 11-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 11-7-2004 by koji_K]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join