Just wondering what you think

[kristen821]

The vast majority of Americans greatly respect our country. As a matter of fact, those that you were referring to in your earlier messages are among those that respect our country the most. Dissent is patriotic. It shows true concern for the principles of our country.

There is no reason to believe that that is the case, at all.

They will see a vibrant, strong people who are able to derive strength from their differences -- most thoughtful people of the world know that that is where America has always drawn its strength from.

I know if I went somewhere and all I saw was how much everyone hated thier leader. I would think negatively against the country. All anyone hears about us is what the media puts out. You rarely see the media show anyone that supports the president so that is all people have to go on. I thing all the negativity takes away from our positives.

 

[Holly]

I know if I went somewhere and all I saw was how much everyone hated thier leader. I would think negatively against the country. All anyone hears about us is what the media puts out. You rarely see the media show anyone that supports the president so that is all people have to go on. I thing all the negativity takes away from our positives.

Kristen,
Are you familiar with the issues? Should everyone who disagrees just be quiet so that it "looks better' to other countries? I think the media has been more than generous with their coverage of the Prsident and current events.

If no one questions authority, those in control are given free rein to abuse the power that they have.

The vast majority of Americans greatly respect our country. As a matter of fact, those that you were referring to in your earlier messages are among those that respect our country the most. Dissent is patriotic. It shows true concern for the principles of our country.

There is no reason to believe that that is the case, at all.

They will see a vibrant, strong people who are able to derive strength from their differences -- most thoughtful people of the world know that that is where America has always drawn its strength from.

I know that didn't copy properly, but that is a fabulous post, Bicker.

 

[kristen821]

Kristen,
Are you familiar with the issues? Should everyone who disagrees just be quiet so that it "looks better' to other countries? I think the media has been more than generous with their coverage of the Prsident and current events.

If no one questions authority, those in control are given free rein to abuse the power that they have.


I know that didn't copy properly, but that is a fabulous post, Bicker.

Yes I know the issues, but this has been going on forever before these issues came up. I don't believe the media shows the positive side of anything. I know there are positive sides to the presidents decisions that are not shown often. I don't agree with everything he does, but I am going to support my country and not bash him every chance I get.

 

[Alice's Mom]

Maybe 1.elections every other year instead of every 4 years. I think that is when our opinions actually do matter 2.Throw out that whole electoral vote process and have it done strictly on popular vote 3. Don't have a limit to the number of years a president can be president. If we end up with a wonderful president why get rid of him in 8 years also, that last 4 years of being the president they have nothing to lose as long as they don't go to overboard. I think the media should be able to state facts, but I don't think opinions should be broadcasted.

1. I disagree with this because the person elected as president would only work on their re-election

2. The electoral college was implemented because our election process in the beginning was much different and our founding fathers didn't trust the average american to make the correct choice at the polls. The electoral college does work in that the votes a state provides is equal to how many Congressional Representatives it has. If a person seeking office was going solely on the popular vote s/he would only be campaigning in the most populous states.

3. We originally did not limit how many times a person could be president, it was merely a tradition to only have 2 terms, one set by Washington. FDR had 4 terms. The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 changed it to a limit of 2 terms as to not create a monarchy of sorts.

In regards to criticizing our president: when our current president was re-elected I heard many people talk about leaving, to me that isn't necessarily a true love of your country to abandon it during tough times. I think criticizing your president without trying to change what you dislike isn't very constructive either, but following your president without fail can be dangerous too.

I think it is healthy that our citizens disagree and I am grateful for our constitution that allows us to speak out minds, peacefully protest and call our government on its actions. I wouldn't want it any other way!

 

[Chuck S]

Having an election every two years would accomplish nothing, except waste a ton of $$$. Elections are not free from a monetary standpoint, they are paid for by the states. A two year term also is not long enough for any President, good or bad, to accomplish anything except organize his re-election campaign.

And please don't try to tie being anti a particular president's policies to being anti-American the two are not the same, no matter how much the current administration tries to link the two together.

The freedom of the press, and the rights of them to broadcast those opinions are part of what makes this country the free country it is. I don't recall the press being allowed to speak out against Saddam in Iraq. People were not allowed to pubically disagree with Saddam, how would forbidding folks to express their anti-presidential feeling in this country be any different than living in Iraq under Saddam's regime?

 

[Disney Doll]

Freedom of speech is a basic right in this country, and as such should be respected. I sort of understand what you mean, because with all the negativity flying around all the time, I wonder if other ocuntries look at us and say "Boy, they certainly don't have their act together".

I think that the media is partially responsible for this. They report upon what they choose, they skew the information to their way of thinking, and unfortunately, not everyone in the country is as well-read or well-versed in these areas as we DISers, so the media's views, or Tom Cruise's views, or Sean Penn's views, become "our" views, because, my God, if Tom Cruise or Sean Penn or Joe News Anchor said it, it must be true...they're famous.

I fear that as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer Americans who will be willing to fight for the country, it's causes and beliefs. We will be too busy being politically correct, not wanting to "offend" anyone. I just hope it doesn't happen in my lifetime.

 

[taximomfor4]

The problem with more frequent elections is that it would tend to prevent any progress whatsoever. The four year term of the President is considered to be one of the strongest aspects of the American system, and only not followed in other nations where there is too much distrust between the different factions. I suppose the way things have been going in recent years, the level of distrust has indeed been increasing, very quickly, so it may seem like such a radical Constitutional change is warranted. I would think that would be a shame though -- I'd far rather work to rebuild the trust that has been lost rather than abandon such an important aspect of our system.
.....

Bicker,
I always so look forward to reading your posts. Even the occasional things you say that I disagree with are interesting reads...(not the case here, I actually do agree, just wanted to compliment your thorough, well-worded posts!)

As far as Bush-bashing (or bashing any other president), I can remember caricatures of pretty much every president since my birth. I remember telling Jimmy Carter jokes as a child. Does it go too far? Maybe for my comfort level...but then, I am not too comfortable with insult-fests in general.

Hey! Maybe some people advertise their disapproval so that foreign visitors will know that they, personally, are not a part of the Bush shenanigans. BTW, I am from Ohio where pre-and post-election were both sometimes very ugly and divided.

 

[taximomfor4]

What makes you think that it is the anti-Bush rhetoric that is causing the ridicule by other countries? I think it is more likely that the anti-Bush rhetoric is keeping the ridicule by other countries at a lower level than it would have been otherwise.

My friends in several European countries say that they and their social acquaintances pity the Americans who voted against the president. That they know, because of media coverage, that many many Americans are not fond of the president... so they try weigh what they "hate" (strong word!) about Americans vs. which Americans are "respobsible."

 

[JennyMominRI]

I know this is probably going to start the flaming, but does anyone else feel that Americans need to stop putting down our president. I don't agree with everything that he does at all, but I feel that Americans are hated world wide. I don't think it helps that everytime you turn around you see anti-Bush bumper stickers, anti-Bush protest, anti-Bush news and radio, etc. I just think we would be liked more worldwide if Americans weren't so antipresident. Stuff like this has been going on as long as I remember. It doesn't matter who the president is. It doesn't matter if they are democrat or republican. It just seems like everything is antipresident.

I feel very happy and very privileged to live in a country where we can speak freely against our elected officials without fear of imprisonment, treason charges or death.
Incidentally my MANY friends from the UK are thrilled to hear from those of us who disagree with Bush because they despise him,and for that matter, Blair

 

[DisneyJen0504]

I feel very happy and very privalaged to live in a country where we can speak freely against our elected officials without fear of imprisonment, treason charges or death.
Incidentally my MANY friends from the UK are thrilled to hear from thos eof us who disagree with Bush because they despise him,and for that matter, Blair

Well said.

 

[Bashful2]

I think it's fine to disagree with our president. However, I also believe the office of the presidency should be respected and, like it or not, Bush is our president. I don't believe Americans should call any president of the US an idiot or any other disrespectful name because, IMHO, it disrespects the office.

 

[bicker]

I know if I went somewhere and all I saw was how much everyone hated thier leader. I would think negatively against the country.

I don't believe Americans should call any president of the US an idiot or any other disrespectful name because, IMHO, it disrespects the office.

Perhaps you both should reconsider thost implications. There is a difference between the intent of comments and how each reader/listener decides to perceive them. It would be more accurate for the perception to change to match the intention. What I'm trying to say is that it is better to try to see things from the standpoint of the people who's comments and actions you're viewing, rather than applying your own preconceived notions as to what could be motivating such comments and actions.

If a person seeking office was going solely on the popular vote s/he would only be campaigning in the most populous states.

The electoral system, in most states, means that candidate who wins that state wins all that state's electoral votes. That, more than anything, focuses candidates campaigns on the states with the most electoral votes, today. I change to a regular system, where the winner of the popular vote is the winner of the election, would change that very little, if at all.

I always so look forward to reading your posts. Even the occasional things you say that I disagree with are interesting reads...(not the case here, I actually do agree, just wanted to compliment your thorough, well-worded posts!)

Thanks! <blush>

 

[Crankyshank]

Part of the reason why Americans are disliked overseas is the fact that quite a large number of us are rude and entitled, particularly traveling in areas where English is not the spoken language of the country. I have many friends and acquaintances that are from other parts of the world and not one of them has ever said they dislike Americans because of any anti-President sentiment. If anything the opposite is true for a lot of them.

Dissent is Patriotic. If there wasn't dissent 200+ years ago, we wouldn't exist as a nation. While I think the office of the President should be respected and I cringe when negative nicknames are used to refer to the President (whoever is in office at the time), I think there is nothing more quintessentially American than exercising your 1st Ammendment right and vocalizing your opinion of the government. If anything the fact that people care enough to speak out gives me great hope for the Country. It's far better than apathy or being complacent imho.

 

[Missy1961]

Dissent is Patriotic. If there wasn't dissent 200+ years ago, we wouldn't exist as a nation. While I think the office of the President should be respected and I cringe when negative nicknames are used to refer to the President (whoever is in office at the time), I think there is nothing more quintessentially American than exercising your 1st Ammendment right and vocalizing your opinion of the government. If anything the fact that people care enough to speak out gives me great hope for the Country. It's far better than apathy or being complacent imho.

I agree 100%!

 

[kristen821]

I am not saying they need to take away our first amendment right. I think we do have the right to speak out if we are stating facts, but rude bumper stickers and t-shirts and name calling isn't helping so why do it. I think it just makes us look bad.

 

[va32h]

I think we do have the right to speak out if we are stating facts,

So we can freely say "2 plus 2 equals four!" but we can't say "boy this season of the Amazing Race was really boring!"?

The problem with a "just the facts" attitude toward our first amendment rights, is that statments like "The President is a brilliant, super guy" are no more factual than "The President is a dork".

And what about those issues in which fact is impossible to determine? Ask a Creationist and an Evolutionist to tell you "just the facts" about their beliefs. Then decide which one has to shut up because he isn't stating facts.

 

[DarkSideMoon]

We elected him. We have to live with our decision until he is gone. I like him, but he isn't that bright sometimes.....

 

[kristen821]

I guess I just think if you don't have anything nice to say don't say it at all unless it is a fact and not an opinion. I don't agree with him all the time, but I feel he is the president and we need to have some respect for him. It is also one thing to bad mouth him to friends, but out of respect I don't think he sould be bad mouthed for the world to see.

 

[yeartolate]

I guess I just think if you don't have anything nice to say don't say it at all unless it is a fact and not an opinion. I don't agree with him all the time, but I feel he is the president and we need to have some respect for him. It is also one thing to bad mouth him to friends, but out of respect I don't think he sould be bad mouthed for the world to see.

It depends on your definition of "fact".

Is our President commiting a crime by allowing wiretaps without warrants on our own citizens? Hasn't been decided yet - but there is good reason to worry. Is it "badmouthing" the President to hold him accountable and to explain himself? Of course it is not. Horrible things happen when citizens allow power to go unchecked.

Are you trying to say that Americans should not protest things within our own government? Protests do not happen silently. Our ability to protest our own government is really at the heart of what defines us as a nation.

 

[bicker]

That's really it. If this guy was President of some company, instead of the United States, I'd agree that bad-mouthing was inappropriate. In that case, we shouldn't be bad-mouthing without clear evidence of what we're saying already in-hand. By contrast, the President of the United States works for us, and is subject to our criticism -- is subject to our approval.