Quote: Original post by Machaira

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Machaira
Why should I respect the position?

Because it is a symbol that represents you, your fellowmen, your country, it's history and the sacrifice of those who died to protect it.

Maybe many years ago, but now it's mostly a joke

If you're talking about how men use symbols for the sake of their own interests, well that has always been that way.

Didn't George Washington use his presidential influence to prejudice small liquor producers in order to benefit his own liquor (or was it beer?) enterprises?

I was thinking today about this conversation we are having and I came to the conclusion that The Symbol deserves a lot more respect than the person that carries it. Because if things go wrong with that person, it is the symbol what has to be preserved, not the person.

I'm currently lacking the english necesary to express elegantly what I'm trying to say. wtv

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Machaira
Why should I respect the position?

Because it is a symbol that represents you, your fellowmen, your country, it's history and the sacrifice of those who died to protect it.

Does that mean that if you respect yourself, your fellow men, your country, its history, and the sacrifices of those who died to protect it, that you don't have to respect the position?

Symbols are overrated. Most things can be claimed to be symbols of pretty much anything you like - as evidenced by what some people in the Middle East claim POTUS is a symbol of.

Quote: Original post by Machaira

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Machaira
Why should I respect the position?

Because it is a symbol that represents you, your fellowmen, your country, it's history and the sacrifice of those who died to protect it.

Maybe many years ago, but now it's mostly a joke, usually going to the person with the deepest wallets or best PR. It certainly hasn't represented me. I'm actually preparing a speech for the local chapter of Toastmasters on exactly this, the joke that is our political system.

Completely unrelated:

Toastmasters is great! They had one (a chapter maybe?) at my mom's work for a while and she really enjoyed it.

Quote: Original post by superpig

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Machaira
Why should I respect the position?

Because it is a symbol that represents you, your fellowmen, your country, it's history and the sacrifice of those who died to protect it.

Does that mean that if you respect yourself, your fellow men, your country, its history, and the sacrifices of those who died to protect it, that you don't have to respect the position?

I'm sorry: WTF?

Quote: Original post by superpig
Symbols are overrated. Most things can be claimed to be symbols of pretty much anything you like - as evidenced by what some people in the Middle East claim POTUS is a symbol of.

Anything can be claimed to be a symbol. A bus ticket, the cover of a chocolate. The symbol doesn't exist by itself. It exist because you recognize it as such.

If you decide to not give a shit about symbols, that's perfectly fine. The world will still spin regardeless of your beliefs (or your lack of them).

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Machaira
Why should I respect the position?

Because it is a symbol that represents you, your fellowmen, your country, it's history and the sacrifice of those who died to protect it.

Some people only respect the position when it's occupied by a member of their party. You probably haven't heard of this, but some of President Obama's opponents cheered loudly at the news that Chicago lost it's bid to host the 2016 Olympics. They actually cheered at the news that their country lost out and all because of their hatred for the President. And these people present themselves as patriots!

Well I am glad we lost the Olympic bid because it costs a LOT of money. I guess I only heard this on NPR, but supposedly there hasn't been a single profitable Olympics. Most people point out the LA games, but according to the guy speaking, the profit only includes the direct costs of the games, and does not include security or other 'indirect' costs.

Either way, I think Obama did the right thing. Didn't he promise his constituents in Illinois when he was Senator? I somehow feel if he didn't do this and Fox found out, they'd all be on Obama about how he lies and takes back campaign promises.

I agree that many of Obama's opponents would have complained had he not promoted the Olympics. Also, it can't be easy to determine 'profitability' of hosting the Olympics either. There are so many variables to take into account and it also depends on who you consider needs to make a profit. Is it the city? The country? The shareholders of the various corporations that benefit from the Olympics? That guy may have analyzed all the variables. I don't know.

Even then, past performance may not be indicative of future results. More important would be to analyze why the Olympics isn't profitable to the hosting city/country. Is it impossible to make money due to the requirements imposed by the IOC? If past hosts had made different choices would they have made money? Did Chicago's plan to host the Olympics deal with the known problems?

There are also abstract bonuses to hosting Olympics. If Chicago had been selected and ran the Olympics well would it have improved the image of the United States to the world, kept it the same, or worsened it?

The issue of hosting the olympics is nowhere near clear cut enough to make me happy to have lost the bid much less cheer at it. I'm mostly OK with it either way and I guess not hosting it will be much less of a headache for the United States. It's a shame Chicago spent as much money they did to get the bid though.