Nobody respects Obama.

[Diogenes]

--------
"As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron."
---H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Posted by: Mike Hammer at July 05, 2013 05:35 PM (aDwsi)

[Stubby]

Fear and respect are not mutually exclusive. If watching your behavior around someone is needed to avoid trouble, that someone can get a lot of respect. They may still be greatly disliked.

In terms of Diplomacy, Fear and Respect are virtually synonyms. It is the nature of Humans to grant deference to people who can hurt them.


If you have people's fear, you will always get their respect.

Respect is a positive feeling of esteem or deference for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion), and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem. Respect can be a specific feeling of regard for the actual qualities of the one respected (e.g., "I have great respect for her judgment"). It can also be conduct in accord with a specific ethic of respect. Rude conduct is usually considered to indicate a lack of respect, disrespect, where as actions that honor somebody or something indicate respect. Specific ethics of respect are of fundamental importance to various cultures. Respect for tradition and legitimate authority is identified by Jonathan Haidt, a professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, as one of five fundamental moral values shared to a greater or lesser degree by different societies and individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect

Is fear a positive feeling?

[ladajo]

Why do folks want to make the word respect so complicated?
Respect means giving something/one Value. You can pretty say respect is value.

Fear does not give Value

Fearing someone or something is not respect. You can both respect and fear something. But they are not the same.

[rj40]

Yeah, I think there is a fundamental difference between fear and respect. But what about operationally? I might seem to respond to people I respect and others I fear in the same way, but upon closer look, I don't think so - especially if I get to vote for one or the other. At least vote anonymously.

I respect Obama, even if I don't agree with everything he does. And I don't particularly fear him.
I don't think he was voted in twice because people were afraid of him. But how much did they respect him? *Maybe* a bit more than his challengers. If the majority who voted had feared him, I think he probably would have lost.

[paperburn1]

Why do folks want to make the word respect so complicated?
Respect means giving something/one Value. You can pretty say respect is value.

Fear does not give Value

Fearing someone or something is not respect. You can both respect and fear something. But they are not the same.

The also do not carry the same results in regards to a persons actions. A person that is feared always achieves poorer results in regards to his minions performance and loyalty.

[MSimon]

Is fear a positive feeling?

Properly attended to it will keep you out of trouble.

[ladajo]

That does not make it positive. It just begs for attention in a normally functioning brain.

[Diogenes]

Why do folks want to make the word respect so complicated?
Respect means giving something/one Value. You can pretty say respect is value.

Fear does not give Value

Fearing someone or something is not respect. You can both respect and fear something. But they are not the same.

In General usage the word "Respect" has more than one meaning, but in regards to conduct between nations, (Diplomacy) it generally has only a single meaning. "Fear." Nations that do not have some sort of leverage, being it a resource, a strategic position, or military capabilities, do not have to be treated with the same degree of respect as those who do, because there are lesser consequences for treating them with disdain.


People may say they respect electricity, or say they respect explosives, or animals, or any number of things, and the only thing about them that would engender "respect" is the ability to hurt someone who isn't wary.

That notion of "respect" based on admiration, is generally a small sociological interaction sort of thing. When it comes to nations, the word "respect" means "they can be dangerous."

[Diogenes]

Yeah, I think there is a fundamental difference between fear and respect. But what about operationally? I might seem to respond to people I respect and others I fear in the same way, but upon closer look, I don't think so - especially if I get to vote for one or the other. At least vote anonymously.

The Reason Respect and Fear are often synonyms is because you will generally not treat people whom you fear with disrespect to their face. You may mock them or talk about them in private, but your public face will be one of "respect."

I respect Obama, even if I don't agree with everything he does.

You agree with ANYTHING he does? What might that be? And why would anyone have any respect for him? He has never accomplished anything on his own, he's just a fool, propped up by Liberal Democrats who control the media, and therefore his image.

And I don't particularly fear him.

You should. He is the most dangerous Nazi-Like person to ever occupy high office in this nation.

I don't think he was voted in twice because people were afraid of him. But how much did they respect him? *Maybe* a bit more than his challengers. If the majority who voted had feared him, I think he probably would have lost.

He was voted in twice because those who controls what gets aired on television are Liberal Democrat Union member from either New York or Los Angeles, and they simply ignored every piece of derogatory information about him, and scrutinized and sensationalized every derogatory thing they could think of to say or show about his opponents.

They talked about Romney's dog on his car roof, but they never mention the men who claim to have been Obama's homosexual sex partners. They don't mention his weird real estate deals, or his membership in communist organizations, his drug usage, his drunk driving, his lying on his bar exam, or any number of other details that might make people think worse of him.

The Liberal Democrat Media corporations routinely give Democrat candidates a massive edge in elections, and it has nothing to do with how competent is their candidate. The media is a Democrat Weapon, and that's why Obama got elected.

[Diogenes]

Why do folks want to make the word respect so complicated?
Respect means giving something/one Value. You can pretty say respect is value.

Fear does not give Value

Fearing someone or something is not respect. You can both respect and fear something. But they are not the same.

The also do not carry the same results in regards to a persons actions. A person that is feared always achieves poorer results in regards to his minions performance and loyalty.

You should read Machiavelli. He asserts that being loved is good, but being feared is best.

[williatw]

He was voted in twice because those who controls what gets aired on television are Liberal Democrat Union member from either New York or Los Angeles, and they simply ignored every piece of derogatory information about him, and scrutinized and sensationalized every derogatory thing they could think of to say or show about his opponents.

They talked about Romney's dog on his car roof, but they never mention the men who claim to have been Obama's homosexual sex partners. They don't mention his weird real estate deals, or his membership in communist organizations, his drug usage, his drunk driving, his lying on his bar exam, or any number of other details that might make people think worse of him.
The Liberal Democrat Media corporations routinely give Democrat candidates a massive edge in elections, and it has nothing to do with how competent is their candidate. The media is a Democrat Weapon, and that's why Obama got elected.

What about the part of the Obama hating media that consist of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest? For that matter your man Romney must have known about the allegations of bathhouse homosexual love partners. If your man had had any Cojones he would have ran ads featuring them, interviews etc. If he had proof and didn't have the balls to use it he deserves to lose. There is nothing in the law that says the media is supposed to be without bias. The 1st amendment in theory only says that the government can't interfere with the freedom of speech and the press. The media in this country is not now nor was it ever unbiased. Back in the day there were pro-union newspapers and anti-union newspapers, pro civil rights papers and anti-civil rights papers. They reflected the bias and prejudices of their publishers/owners. No other way it would work in a free society.

[rj40]

Yeah, what was the deal with Romney and the dog in his roof? Meh, didn't really convince me to change my vote. Maybe just the choir preaching to the choir. I see a lot of that. Who cares?

And I saw the obama drug stuff on the news. If he was still doing it, yeah, maybe a problem. But, from what little I heard, I just don't care.

Shady land deals? Gay partners? Nothing. And I frequent a fair bit of Hannity and the like. I don't *recall* hearing anything about this. The gay partners thing? Don't care - unless someone got hurt. The shady land deals, I would need more info. If true, why wasn't this jumped on by Hannity and folks? Maybe they needed more evidence? And the other stuff? Are there links to Limbaugh and others with this info? I will read up on it. Of course, too late for this go around.

I'm not sure how many Cajuns Romney had. From the few I know, it was an even split. Now, your N'awlins Cajuns love Obama. But your country Cajuns, well, that can be a surprisingly tough call.


A friend of ours says he can't wait for Chris Christie and Colin Powell to get the RINO party off the ground so he can vote for them. They are slowly convincing me.

[paperburn1]

Why do folks want to make the word respect so complicated?
Respect means giving something/one Value. You can pretty say respect is value.

Fear does not give Value

Fearing someone or something is not respect. You can both respect and fear something. But they are not the same.

The also do not carry the same results in regards to a persons actions. A person that is feared always achieves poorer results in regards to his minions performance and loyalty.

You should read Machiavelli. He asserts that being loved is good, but being feared is best.

Yes but he stated that both was the prefered but only if you have to choose between the two should you choose fear.. Not that fear was prefered
He also said "Men shrink less from offending one who inspires love than one who inspires fear"
"My view is that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved."

[hanelyp]

Want to be respected and not hated? Operate on principles that people can understand and you don't have to lie about. Even if people don't agree with you, being able to trust you attracts respect.

As for the Zero Occupier of the whitehouse, about the only time I take him at his word is when he promises destruction. Every other promise comes with an expiration date.

[Diogenes]

He was voted in twice because those who controls what gets aired on television are Liberal Democrat Union member from either New York or Los Angeles, and they simply ignored every piece of derogatory information about him, and scrutinized and sensationalized every derogatory thing they could think of to say or show about his opponents.

They talked about Romney's dog on his car roof, but they never mention the men who claim to have been Obama's homosexual sex partners. They don't mention his weird real estate deals, or his membership in communist organizations, his drug usage, his drunk driving, his lying on his bar exam, or any number of other details that might make people think worse of him.
The Liberal Democrat Media corporations routinely give Democrat candidates a massive edge in elections, and it has nothing to do with how competent is their candidate. The media is a Democrat Weapon, and that's why Obama got elected.

What about the part of the Obama hating media that consist of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest?

That you would even mention them demonstrates you don't have a grasp of the issue. What is the audience of "Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest?" A few million? And pretty much representative of the Republican hard core?

The people who swing elections are the muddled middle who aren't in to politics. They watch general news and entertainment and generally don't pay attention to specifically political shows. The Liberal Democrat Media complex has virtually the entire demographic of low information voters, and few if any even know who Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is.

For that matter your man Romney must have known about the allegations of bathhouse homosexual love partners.

Don't call him "My Man" because I disliked him intently. He was my LAST choice, and only then because he was the ONLY choice left. Obama is so bad, I would have voted for that Idiot Biden as an improvement.

If your man had had any Cojones he would have ran ads featuring them, interviews etc. If he had proof and didn't have the balls to use it he deserves to lose.

There is a Penalty for a candidate doing such a thing. With the Media doing it FOR Obama, he doesn't have to suffer the penalty, while Romney would have. Again, the Media are the shock troops for Democrats.

There is nothing in the law that says the media is supposed to be without bias. The 1st amendment in theory only says that the government can't interfere with the freedom of speech and the press.

What is in the law is irrelevant to the point. The System of Democracy relies on the electorate having the CORRECT information from which to make a decision. You interfere with the ability of the Electorate to receive accurate facts, and you undermine the legitimacy of the Democratic process.

What the media have been doing is violating the longstanding but unwritten law of providing fair and accurate information necessary to make an informed decision. The public regards them as objective referees, not as players for the other team. It is this manipulation of this public trust which is undermining the well being of the nation, and the media is indirectly responsible for enabling the damage thereby caused.

The media in this country is not now nor was it ever unbiased. Back in the day there were pro-union newspapers and anti-union newspapers, pro civil rights papers and anti-civil rights papers. They reflected the bias and prejudices of their publishers/owners. No other way it would work in a free society.

The Media used to make efforts to be reasonable and fair to both sides, even the side with which they disagreed. They actually took to heart the old adage of "defending someone's right to say it. "


Now they are manipulative little con people covering up the ugly on their side, and fabricating ugly on the other side in an effort to STEER elections in the direction they prefer. Each media personality using their influence, is equal to thousands if not millions of votes for their man.

They simply keep steering us left, because they are left minded, and have the power to manipulate the masses.


It will be fatal to Democracy.