Yes, many of us dislike him. Undoubtedly, his plans have proved ineffective at best.
But these truths still don't justify hysterical conspiracy theories of an overnight totalitarian Bush Regime. The president has only confirmed *two* conservative judges, not nine. True, the Republican party has the majority, but it is by no means united behind the President. And so far, the checks and balances are still in place and working. Many of you are upset over the Oregon law, but physician assisted suicide was legalized there not a few years ago while President Bush was still in office. Simply because he has the title doesn't mean he holds unlimited power.
And now a bit about titles. He has been elected President, and as such deserves the honor of the office in addition to the ordinary respect we should give to any ordinary human. There is no reason to deny him respect simply because we disagree with his beliefs. President Bush may represent contention in America, but he also represents our nation. Let's have a more appropriate attitude towards him.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I agree. We must respect that he is president. For even the bible says for us to obey the ones that have rule over us. We don't have to like it but we should respect it.
So, going with that logic, the Jews should have respected Hitler? The Iraqis should have respect Suddam Hussein? The Afgans who were brutually murdered, denied rights, tortured, etc, should have respected the Taliban?
Just because a person or group is in a position of leadership, it does not mean they are deserving of respect. Respect should be earned and deserved, and simply holding an office does not necessarily qualify.
Definitely.
I respect the fact that he IS President, but I don't respect what he has DONE with the power that came with the post.
Yes I'm sure that they did respect Hitler and all of the evil men. I would respect anyone who could kill me with a snap!!! Besides your point does not make sense. Bush was elected, everyone you mentioned brought themselves to power. You have to respect authority even if you don't like it. Anyone who can get to power deserves respect just for bringing themself up to that level!!!
"Simply because he has the title doesn't mean he holds unlimited power" You know something, you are absolutley right- Bush doesn't hold absolute power, but the people who plucked him out of Texas in 2003, made sure he "won" the election and have been orchestrating the actions of this government since 2003, do. Call it a crazy conspiracy theory, call it what you will, but certain aspects of this administration, and the time-line of certain events, point to a conspiracy within this administration. And Bush, being the chosen figure head of that administration, holds the most responsibilty and therefore receives the most criticism for their mistakes and wrong-doings.
And as far as him deserving respect is concerned, I'm sorry, but I don't have any respect for people who lie, cheat and steal. And that goes for anyone- be they a businessman, stripper or President of the United States.
We *are* called to respect Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler as individuals and people. As to the title of "President," President Bush has not revoked his office as they have, and he still holds the title of being elected by the people.
Second commenter:
You should have respect for people as human beings, regardless of what you think they have done. Please provide demonstrable evidence for a "conspiracy theory."
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/katherines
I agree. When Bush was reelected people could have voted for Kerry instead if they hated Bush so much. But no, people vote for him and then complain about him. Well, he was elected fair and square (I know, not necessarily fair when he ran against Gore, but fair against Kerry at least)and the people need to respect him more.
If people think that Bush is horrible job, how can they respect him for that? If people believe that Bush is screwing the country over, how can they respect him for that?
Respect doesn't come with a title -- it comes with the person's ability to live up to the expectations and standards that the aforementioned title calls for.
So many people voted for Bush and agreed with him during the election, at which point the war was already started. Now so many of those people are criticizing him. No, I don't agree with the war, but I don't think Bush is such a horrible president like so many others believe. He got our economoy running so smoothly. But nobody ever acknowledges any beneficial things he has done. Everyone just bashes him.
I would question whether the 2004 vote was fair. There are too many questions about voting machines in Ohio and voters being denied the ballot elsewhere. I also question the necessity to respect him when I'm convinced he is leading the country down the wrong paths in so many areas. He is carrying out the plans of The Project for the New American Century--which aims for world domination by the U.S. I am totally opposed to those ideas, so I do not respect him or his administration.
Notwithstanding the President's bloodthirsty incursions into foreign lands, his total disregard for the environment, his claims to have received instructions directly from God himself, his indifference to the fate of the citizens of the Big Easy, and his desire to dismantle the Social Security system, it has to be conceded that he is an inspiration to stupid people everywhere. He has never once allowed his intellectual shortcomings to hold him back. Somehow, by the Grace of The Good Lord Himself, the coalition of the "Amoral Majority" and big business managed to convince about 50% of the population to vote for what appears to be a functionally illiterate hillbilly. A remarkable achievement. Truly inspirational!
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.
We owe a basic amount of respect to all human beings due to the very fact of their humanity, regardless of their views and actions.
We also owe a basic amount of respect to offices-i.e., there are many corrupt police officers, but we still respect their authority.
This does not mean we aren't entitled to disagree and must have respect for their *actions.* Rather, it means that when we disagree, we should do so in a respectful manner keeping in mind the two truths listed above.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/katherines
I understand that.
But when he refuses to listen to any dissent or disagreeing viewpoints, being "respectful" may not be enough.
Excellent! Now we finally have some meaningful discourse!
FYI, the term "Amoral Majority" has nothing to do with coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a jibe at the God-Fearing, Walmart-Shopping, Gay-Bashing, Women-Hating, Environment-Destroying, War-Supporting, Death-Penalty-Enjoying, and Republican-Voting citizens of Middle-America. I cannot speak for the so-called "Coalition Countries" whose citizens did not have the pleasurable opportunity to vote for our illustrious leader.
So we're suposed to put Bush on a pedistol, let him sell off our resources, and outsource our jobs, listen to his terrible public speaking, watch him smirk as he tells the nation of terrible events that have just happened? I completely agree with what KatherineS said, if he deserves our respect than so does Hitler, after all he was a much better leader than bush ever could be, even though it was more destructive.
Look at it this way, if a monkey was put into office right now, he could do a much better job than Bush could ever dream.
Uh, excuse me? ThatGayConservative and John Hutt, please look at my first blog entry. Attacks on those with whom you disagree don't help your case much or win others to your side.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/katherines
Be honest folks.
The alternatives for the President at the last election were a congenital idiot who married into wealth versus a Monkey.
I voted for the Monkey as in my opinion he would cause much less damage than the congenital idiot.
The Monkey won.
I guess that the question that must be asked is this: given the nature of the current administration, how is it possible that the Democrats were unable to field a winning candidate in 2004? And to badly paraphrase Jon Stewart, how is it possible that the Democrats have approximately 50% popular support, yet have <5% of the political power?
What is encouraging is the sense that the media sharks are now circling, the Amoral Majority is now clearly dissatisfied, and the Democrats have two years to get their collective acts together. If they fail, then there is a real fear that the US will become the first Pariah Superpower of the 21st century.
Yes! I agree, that I would have voted for the Monkey rather than a male-version gold digger (second wife, I might add...its probable that she has more money than his ex-wife). You want to talk about big business, have you ever seen the amount of money that goes in for campaigning by the "public" for Democrats? Most of the donations are in the millions, while for the Republican party the most they get from practically 90 percent of the public is 50 dollars. If the Democrats were really as good as they say they are they wouldn't need those big money donations to convince the rest of the public how much better off they would be with them.
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity"
-Albert Einstein
People who lie, manipulate evidence to prove their points, steal, cheat, win because of the last two, and never have a guilty thought about it don't deserve my attention. Also on that list are people who authorize torture, death, the literal pissing on our constitution, saying 2,500 people dead is "just a number", making America LESS secure, spreading lies, working with party lines only, selling our democracy to big corporations, authorizing the destruction of our environment, spying on reporters so they can't get evidence of governmental wrongdoing, taking away the rights of Americans, and violating the law and ensuring they don't get arrested for it.
I suppose that means I really don't resect Bush at all. He deserves no title; only a conviction for treason.
____
If a society is willing to give freedom for temporary security, they deserve neither.