FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


B.O. as a symptom?





Dennise
In my view, B. Obama is/was unqualified to be the president of a capitalistic country. I believe this because he - and his staff - had very little experience in the private sector, which is - warts and all - the the life blood of America.

But more depressing than an unqualified president, is the sheer number of Americans who put this man into the highest office. I can only resolve this by viewing that voting base as a serious symptom of a desperate America.

Any comment
Voodoocat
The evidence speaks for itself. The current administration does not seem to be able to create jobs, stimulate the housing market, control spending, or inspire confidence in the American economy.

Hopefully Republicans take both the House and Senate; once in they had better follow through by repealing the economically crippling healthcare plan, shrink government, and cut spending drastically.

Now there is change I can believe in.
ocalhoun
Voodoocat wrote:


Hopefully Republicans take both the House and Senate; once in they had better follow through by repealing the economically crippling healthcare plan, shrink government, and cut spending drastically.


Now that would be nice... but what will actually happen if the Republicans take power?
Will they repeal the healthcare plan? Doubtful; they'd probably just change it, making it even worse.
Will they shrink the government? Certainly not; despite rhetoric, neither major party wants smaller government.
Will they cut spending at all, much less 'drastically'? No. Just look at recent history. What makes you think they would cut spending now, when they've always increased spending before?

The things you want are the same things I want; healthcare repeal, shrinking government, cutting spending...
Problem is, the Republicans are not the way to accomplish that. (Neither are the Democrats.)
deanhills
I don't think Obama is a great President, but he is doing his job to a fashion. Think what he does best however is marketing himself, his products and services. I don't agree with his policies but I don't think he is necessarily incapable either. Luckily the Presidential office has its own rhythm and system of administration and decision making that probably keeps most Presidents disciplined and on the straight and narrow (give and take).
silverdown
The Topic name made my come... interesting name
ocalhoun
silverdown wrote:
The Topic name made my come... interesting name

Indeed. Still, whenever I see B.O. I first think 'body odor', not 'Barack Obama'.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
silverdown wrote:
The Topic name made my come... interesting name

Indeed. Still, whenever I see B.O. I first think 'body odor', not 'Barack Obama'.
Laughing I must agree, when I saw the acronym I also had to read the rest of the heading of the thread before I connected it up with Obama. Probably better to call him OB?
liljp617
You could just call him Obama. Or President Obama. It doesn't seem difficult, and it's kind of how we refer to just about every President (radical idea, I know!) minus FDR, which is mostly just to distinguish between the two Roosevelt Presidents.

Frankly, it seems the acronym having a double meaning in this context was done purposefully.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
You could just call him Obama. Or President Obama. It doesn't seem difficult, and it's kind of how we refer to just about every President (radical idea, I know!) minus FDR, which is mostly just to distinguish between the two Roosevelt Presidents.

Frankly, it seems the acronym having a double meaning in this context was done purposefully.
I'm inclined to agree with you on this. Not very respectful and President Obama is after all President of the United States. If not the person, at least people need to respect his office.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
You could just call him Obama. Or President Obama. It doesn't seem difficult, and it's kind of how we refer to just about every President (radical idea, I know!) minus FDR, which is mostly just to distinguish between the two Roosevelt Presidents.

Frankly, it seems the acronym having a double meaning in this context was done purposefully.
I'm inclined to agree with you on this. Not very respectful and President Obama is after all President of the United States. If not the person, at least people need to respect his office.


I don't particularly care if people respect him or not, I just don't understand the desire to reference him differently from any other President. His name is five letters long, it's really easy to write, say, or type.
standready
silverdown wrote:
The Topic name made my come... interesting name

I was thinking the same, in this case however BO = BS. When he was the the Illinois state senate, he seldom voted Yes/No on issues but rather "present". Non-commitment to the people of his district and the state. David Axlerod groomed him carefully for the office he now holds.
Slightly off topic: I will address him as President when I see him act accordingly.
liljp617
What is the correct way to act as a President? Do you hold other Presidents to the same standard when discussing them? Might I assume you would never refer to John Tyler, James Buchanan, Zachary Taylor, and many others as President?

Just seems silly. He was elected to the office of President of the United States -- he is the President. Do you really believe you're making a point with such a childish antic? "He's not doing what I think he should do, so I'm not going to refer to him with the label that aptly describes his position in government!" Mitch McConnell has done many things I disagree with, I guess I'll hold off on referring to him as a Senator until he does what I want...what point does that make? He's still a Senator.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
What is the correct way to act as a President? Do you hold other Presidents to the same standard when discussing them? Might I assume you would never refer to John Tyler, James Buchanan, Zachary Taylor, and many others as President?

Just seems silly. He was elected to the office of President of the United States -- he is the President. Do you really believe you're making a point with such a childish antic? "He's not doing what I think he should do, so I'm not going to refer to him with the label that aptly describes his position in government!" Mitch McConnell has done many things I disagree with, I guess I'll hold off on referring to him as a Senator until he does what I want...what point does that make? He's still a Senator.
I think this should not only apply to Presidents but to all people. All people should be addressed with courtesy and respect, whether you personally respect them or not. Think if everyone were to do that, and you seem to always set a good example with how to do that, it may turn into a world where people could co-exist more peacefully and feel better about themselves at the same time. Double benefit.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
What is the correct way to act as a President? Do you hold other Presidents to the same standard when discussing them? Might I assume you would never refer to John Tyler, James Buchanan, Zachary Taylor, and many others as President?

Just seems silly. He was elected to the office of President of the United States -- he is the President. Do you really believe you're making a point with such a childish antic? "He's not doing what I think he should do, so I'm not going to refer to him with the label that aptly describes his position in government!" Mitch McConnell has done many things I disagree with, I guess I'll hold off on referring to him as a Senator until he does what I want...what point does that make? He's still a Senator.
I think this should not only apply to Presidents but to all people. All people should be addressed with courtesy and respect, whether you personally respect them or not. Think if everyone were to do that, and you seem to always set a good example with how to do that, it may turn into a world where people could co-exist more peacefully and feel better about themselves at the same time. Double benefit.


Good on paper. There are some people I would rather not coexist with however, and therefore I won't pretend I want to. A white supremacist for example -- I might tolerate him/her, but I'm certainly not going to respect them...that's not the kind of person I hold in high regard and frankly they should feel worse for holding such a belief.
standready
This is the first President that I have noticed that the press does not even most of time address as President Obama. They say the President, Mr. Obama or Barack Obama. When they are interviewing him directly, they address him correctly as Mr. President.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I might tolerate him/her, but I'm certainly not going to respect them...that's not the kind of person I hold in high regard and frankly they should feel worse for holding such a belief.
Totally agreed, however I don't think we have to respect a person in order to address them cordially and respectfully. The way we address them would say much more about how we respect ourselves, than how we respect the person. Richard Dawkins would be a good example for me as I have never seen him losing his cool, calling anyone names, or addressing even his greatest foes in a less than respectful tone. He would make comments from time to time of course with a good sense of humour, but always in good taste and of course with incredible subtlety.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I might tolerate him/her, but I'm certainly not going to respect them...that's not the kind of person I hold in high regard and frankly they should feel worse for holding such a belief.
Totally agreed, however I don't think we have to respect a person in order to address them cordially and respectfully. The way we address them would say much more about how we respect ourselves, than how we respect the person. Richard Dawkins would be a good example for me as I have never seen him losing his cool, calling anyone names, or addressing even his greatest foes in a less than respectful tone. He would make comments from time to time of course with a good sense of humour, but always in good taste and of course with incredible subtlety.


I'm confused as to why you would address someone respectfully if you don't respect them (presumably because of some things they say or do)?

Let's take a recent, tangible example...

As of recent, there have been numerous suicides in the US by homosexual teenagers (I believe ranging from ages 13 to 19 though I could be wrong) who have been ostracized by their peers and basically shut off from healthy social interaction simply because of their sexuality. After this string of events, a school board member from Arkansas was writing some atrocious nonsense on his Facebook, such as:

Quote:
"No because being a fag doesn't give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it."


http://www.advocate.com/News/News_Features/Arkansas_School_Board_Member_Thinks_Fags_Should_Die/

He said other similar "crap" for lack of a better word. Now, do you really think an individual like this deserves to be addressed respectfully? I don't. I would much rather look him in the eye and say he's a something along the lines of a moronic disgrace to mankind, then calmly turn around and walk away. I won't give his views credibility by treating them as such and I won't place his purely bigoted, hateful views on the same level as other views that aren't bigoted or hateful. But this is precisely what you do when you start addressing every single person and their views respectfully. Sometimes, people don't deserve respect, they deserve a shoe to the face (metaphorically of course, as physical altercation over the use of words isn't justifiable).
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
He said other similar "crap" for lack of a better word. Now, do you really think an individual like this deserves to be addressed respectfully? I don't. I would much rather look him in the eye and say he's a something along the lines of a moronic disgrace to mankind, then calmly turn around and walk away. I won't give his views credibility by treating them as such and I won't place his purely bigoted, hateful views on the same level as other views that aren't bigoted or hateful. But this is precisely what you do when you start addressing every single person and their views respectfully. Sometimes, people don't deserve respect, they deserve a shoe to the face (metaphorically of course, as physical altercation over the use of words isn't justifiable).
Now you have me confused. I thought you said everyone should be respectful of Obama because he is the President of the United States. Whether they respect him or not? Or wait a minute, maybe you are actually saying everyone should respect Obama regardless? I meant that even if I don't agree with his policies or don't respect him, that I should still respect his office and address him with respect. I then expanded on this by saying that maybe this should apply to all other people as well, and that even if we don't think much of them, still address them with dignity and respect.

So no, I don't agree if someone is talking "crap" that you show them lack of respect. You can personally think that, but during the discussion it probably would be better to say that "I don't agree with your views" or "Are you sure you are right?". And state your reasons for disagreeing. Instead of something along the lines of "You moron, you are talking crap". If you show respect, you may, depending on the person, get a different response that may change your view in the end as well. As it could be that you made a judgment call on your perception of what he said that was not entirely perfect. None of us are perfect. Also, the show of respect always gives you a stronger position in a discussion. Richard Dawkins again is a very good example of that.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
He said other similar "crap" for lack of a better word. Now, do you really think an individual like this deserves to be addressed respectfully? I don't. I would much rather look him in the eye and say he's a something along the lines of a moronic disgrace to mankind, then calmly turn around and walk away. I won't give his views credibility by treating them as such and I won't place his purely bigoted, hateful views on the same level as other views that aren't bigoted or hateful. But this is precisely what you do when you start addressing every single person and their views respectfully. Sometimes, people don't deserve respect, they deserve a shoe to the face (metaphorically of course, as physical altercation over the use of words isn't justifiable).
Now you have me confused. I thought you said everyone should be respectful of Obama because he is the President of the United States. Whether they respect him or not? Or wait a minute, maybe you are actually saying everyone should respect Obama regardless? I meant that even if I don't agree with his policies or don't respect him, that I should still respect his office and address him with respect. I then expanded on this by saying that maybe this should apply to all other people as well, and that even if we don't think much of them, still address them with dignity and respect.


I haven't claimed anybody should respect anyone or anything in this thread...the only time I've used the word respect is to give examples of the kinds of people I wouldn't show respect.

My point revolves around:

Quote:
Slightly off topic: I will address him as President when I see him act accordingly.


I responded to that by asking what point is really being made by purposefully refraining from using the label President (ie the label that appropriately describes Obama's position in government). It's not an issue of respect for me, it's more an issue of what makes most sense and perhaps what is traditional in terms of talking about Presidents. Why wouldn't a person use the label of President, when that's precisely what most accurately describes Obama? My reasoning for asking that question isn't because I think everyone should call him President simply to be respectful. I ask the question because "President" is the most correct term to use when talking about Obama's position in government -- and I can't fathom what purpose there is to intentionally ignoring the label, as if it makes a point. It just seems silly overall to reference somebody, then purposefully refrain from using an accurate label that describes that somebody.

Quote:
So no, I don't agree if someone is talking "crap" that you show them lack of respect. You can personally think that, but during the discussion it probably would be better to say that "I don't agree with your views" or "Are you sure you are right?". And state your reasons for disagreeing. Instead of something along the lines of "You moron, you are talking crap". If you show respect, you may, depending on the person, get a different response that may change your view in the end as well. As it could be that you made a judgment call on your perception of what he said that was not entirely perfect. None of us are perfect. Also, the show of respect always gives you a stronger position in a discussion. Richard Dawkins again is a very good example of that.


If I could reasonably assume this school board member would speak with some sanity, I might sit down and have a discussion with him. I can't bring myself to make that assumption, so I'm not very interested in having a discussion. I'd rather save my time and sit him in the corner with a dunce hat, as that appropriately describes him.

Even so, his views are not worthy of respect. Given that he holds these views, I don't respect him. Unless we're using two different meanings of the word respect (to hold in high regard or high esteem), I can't see why any non-bigoted person would respect an individual like this or much of anything he says. By addressing him respectfully, you give his views credibility -- you give them a platform and put them on some level of equality with views that aren't prejudiced/hateful. They're not credible views and they don't deserve equal treatment compared to other views on the topic. Again, I will tolerate him and his views, but they're not worthy of respect from anyone.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I haven't claimed anybody should respect anyone or anything in this thread...the only time I've used the word respect is to give examples of the kinds of people I wouldn't show respect.
I stand corrected liljp617 and apologies I got it wrong. You said that Obama should be called the same as other Presidents as that would make greater sense. I get it now.
liljp617 wrote:
Even so, his views are not worthy of respect. Given that he holds these views, I don't respect him. Unless we're using two different meanings of the word respect (to hold in high regard or high esteem), I can't see why any non-bigoted person would respect an individual like this or much of anything he says. By addressing him respectfully, you give his views credibility -- you give them a platform and put them on some level of equality with views that aren't prejudiced/hateful. They're not credible views and they don't deserve equal treatment compared to other views on the topic. Again, I will tolerate him and his views, but they're not worthy of respect from anyone.
I agree, if you don't respect someone, then you won't go out seeking them out. But it always happens that we may have to communicate with them, and what I meant by being courteous is to address them correctly as you would address anyone else, if you do have to talk to them. A respectful tone may also put you in a position of advantage as well.
Dennise
Hello,

This is the original poster of this thread.

Just to be clear, I had no disrespect intention in referring to President Barrack Obama as B.O. Those are his initials ..... nothing more nothing less.

Does no one think the overwhelming support he enjoyed in 2008 can be viewed as a symptom of a very troubled, dissatisfied and even desperate America?
deanhills
Dennise wrote:
Does no one think the overwhelming support he enjoyed in 2008 can be viewed as a symptom of a very troubled, dissatisfied and even desperate America?
2008 in the history of politics in the US is ages ago ..... don't you think? Some of those who supported him have become quite disilluioned from the reports I have seen. I don't think he is a bad President, but even I had hopes then, which were unrealistic ones of course in retrospect. As he is only President of the United States. And quite vulerable as a Politician like every one else, and he was also relatively in experienced, but learning very fast of course. I have a feeling he will be around for quite a while though. And that is probably going to be sad for the United States as he likes to spend money and increase debt. A President is needed to facilitate cutting spending and decreasing the debt load.
Related topics
Ogame
Bog off
Frihost nedir ? Size neler sunar ?
What are you listening to right now?
Czy to nie zabawne??
Terrell Owens
GOOD BYE T.O!
Sigi do oceny :D
[TROTE] Atendimento do speedy
Changes in Windows license
What's the worst job you've had?
How do I win the Nobel Prize?
Heaven is the final station!!! Sure?
B.O. admits there was no such thing as a shovel ready job
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.