Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: 209 on January 14, 2009, 05:46:29 AM
-
I got yelled at on another forum because I allegedly dissed President Obama (at least the person who took me to task "perceived" I was disrespectful :rolleyes: ).
Anyway he said, "No one will be allowed to show utter disrespect to the Commander in Chief." It got me thinking. At one point in time when I was in the military, the POTUS was indeed my CiC. But according to my interpertation of the Constitution, the POTUS is not the CiC of civilians.
Your thoughts?
-
You are correct. He will be the CinC of the Armed Forces. He is the President to civilians. Civilians are alowed to be just as disrespectful to the President as they want, provided they don't threaten him, but you'll want to remember that the names you call someone often say more about you, then the person you're calling names.
-
This is the part that bothers me: "Anyway he said, "No one will be allowed to show utter disrespect to the Commander in Chief."
He is saying no dissent will be tolerated.
-
Disagreeing with someone and disrespecting someone are different. You can vocally disagree with President Elect Obama without disrespecting him.
Juvenile name calling the President Elect on this forum will get you on the short trail to being banned here.
-
. . . Civilians are alowed to be just as disrespectful to the President as they want, provided they don't threaten him . . .
Reminds me of a story about a US Citizen and a Soviet citizen who met in some neutral place - call it an airport in Switzerland - during the Reagan era.
They began talking, and the discussion turned to politics.
The American said "We're free to disagree with our President here - I can go up to President Reagan, pound on his desk, and tell him I hate the way he's running America."
The Soviet said, "It is the same in Russia, comrade."
The American, incredulously, said, "How can that be? You live in a Communist dictatorship!!"
The Soviet said, "Well, comrade, it's like this - I can go the Kremlin, enter President Gorbachev's office, pound on his desk, and tell him I hate the way Reagan is running America."
-
This is the part that bothers me: "Anyway he said, "No one will be allowed to show utter disrespect to the Commander in Chief."
He is saying no dissent will be tolerated.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fas.org%2Firp%2Fworld%2Fgermany%2Fintro%2Ftoten.jpg&hash=bc6ecc1990695c9b46cfac214dba56ac1487281f)
-
Considering the abuse heaped on George W. Bush by the left, it is hard to imagine how any liberal/progressive/socialist/communist et al could object to criticism of Obama!
-
This is the part that bothers me: "Anyway he said, "No one will be allowed to show utter disrespect to the Commander in Chief."
He is saying no dissent will be tolerated.
Yeah, you spotted a problem. It seems it was perfectly fine for the libs to "diss" Bush for the last eight years, but now it's not okay to even question the new guy. I think I see an overall attempt to stifle negative remarks by libs more often than I see conservatives doing it.
You are correct. He will be the CinC of the Armed Forces. He is the President to civilians. Civilians are alowed to be just as disrespectful to the President as they want, provided they don't threaten him, but you'll want to remember that the names you call someone often say more about you, then the person you're calling names
My understanding of the CiC clause in the Constitution also.
As far as the names I would use- if I call him a socialist and anyone takes offense, I guess I'll take my lumps. If he promotes an idiotic policy, I'd like to think calling him an idiot would be fair game. But I'll let you know if I manage to stay on that forum. :laugh:
-
As far as the names I would use- if I call him a socialist and anyone takes offense, I guess I'll take my lumps. If he promotes an idiotic policy, I'd like to think calling him an idiot would be fair game. But I'll let you know if I manage to stay on that forum. :laugh:
Be careful - some people object to anyone using his full name, Barack Hussein Obama.
(I wonder if they object to John Quincy Adams, William Henry Harrison, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, or Harry S. Truman, all of whom were known by their full names.)
-
This is the part that bothers me: "Anyway he said, "No one will be allowed to show utter disrespect to the Commander in Chief."
He is saying no dissent will be tolerated.
Or, he's saying you won't be allowed to call him Hitler. Which is also the rule around here, or so I have learned. :lol:
-
You can compare Obama to Hitler if you so wish. That's permitted.
You can't, however, substituting Hitler for all of your references to Obama. That will get you booted. It's childish and it's petty.
I see no issue in referring to him by his full given name.
But, to refer to him ONLY as Hussein is a first-class ticket on an express train out of here. It's a pathetic attempt to associate the man with terrorists. It's fearmongering at its worst.
-
"No one will be allowed to show utter disrespect to the Commander in Chief."
All must genuflect to the Supreme Leader. Is that it?
The CIC must earn his respect through wise deeds. Just like everyone else.
I must say I don't trust the way all this is heading, and I am not alone.
-
So the liberals are doing the same thing the conservatives did to so-called moonbats when they attacked Bush, invoking the sanctity of the office.
Amusing.
-
This topic is closed, nothing good could come by keeping it open.
-Charby
-
"All must genuflect to the Supreme Leader. Is that it?"
"...invoking the sanctity of the office."
The office, by its very nature, carries a certain level of expected respect based on its heirarchy in the Constitutional framework that defines our nation and also the breadth and depth of history associated with it.
Those who are unable to see that and who secumb to their own petulant, childish whims and prejudices have deeper problems.