Yikes! Bill Press on Ed Schultz: No one in DC is afraid of President Obama.

[Karmadillo]

If this keeps up, I wouldn't want to be Iran.

[GodlessBiker]

1. What are we living in, ancient Rome? We have to fear our leaders?

[rpannier]

3. There has always been a certain fear of the President

That they'd veto legislation that would provide subsidies to your state
That he'd lock you out of certain negotiations
That he would not support legislation that you want for your state

[GodlessBiker]

14. I take it back. Hail Caesar!

[Canuckistanian]

20. That's true. Bush ruled with an iron fist.

Of course, it looked like OTHER PEOPLE were doing the "enforcing", but that's the way it's done in a Republican government.

Of course, it's easier when you hold all the keys to major media interests. No one DARES point out that the Emperor is less than adequately dressed.

[Hawkowl]

6. Bullies only motivated by fear

Or bribery (appeasement). So, if most rethuglicans are bullies, how is Obama supposed to get them to do anything he wants? Or conservadems? I think we can see what happens when we elect Barney the purple dinosaur as president...."I love you" "You lo..oww!"

[Cleita]

7. I think he meant that the Senate and Supreme Court

and other Washington denizens don't fear what he could do to them like past Presidents have, not the ordinary American. Personally, I would rather not have a President that holds closet skeletons over the heads of legislators to get them to do what he wants. I do think Obama could be more forceful in convincing them to do the right thing. Like he could make them stay in Washington through their vacation time until they get a sticky problem solved. I remember things like this being done in the past.

[HughMoran]

2. OMG - everybody hates Obambam!

[IcyPeas]

11. (love those people jumping into the hole gif!!!!!)

[Juche]

4. I didn't see it

But I wouldn't be surprised. Yell 'you lie' at a presidential address and he doesn't fight back. then he changes the bill to appease the person dick slapping him on TV.

[Lisa D]

5. Whatever will we do?

Run, Toto, Run!

:crazy:

[Winterblues]

8. They should be..He has won every battle so far..

:shrug:

[RandomThoughts]

9. That is an old arguement.

Rove spoke of it, better to be feared or respected. It is a really old conversation of how respect is gained.

Some only worry about what might happen to them, they are ruled by fear. Others think of best outcomes for many people, and are not scared by things like fear.

It is like the two reasons people follow some law, some do it because they fear what would happen, some do it because they think it is the right thing to do. Although that does explain why half of laws is education, and half enforcement.

A moral person does not need fear to rule them. A person with no morals would need to be scared to do something.

However the use of fear is really short term gain, because it always takes more fear since people adjust to it.

The best management style is to get people to want to work for something better, not to try and make them. If someone tries to make someone do something, they have to always watch people, and they only get the minimal work from them. If someone is taught to think something is best, then they do it for their own choice of what is best, and only if they think and feel it is best.




Also I don't think people should try to get people to fear them, but do the best to build on ideas that are better by best means, however sternness does not require fear, it can be justice explained and still part of education. However those that need to be scared, really are just worried about themselves either way, and that may be the point anyways.


I wonder how a person scared for those people might figure into that. What would it mean to be scared for a person that thinks fear is the only motivator? That is an interesting thought.

[Juche]

22. Morals only exist because of fear

look it up. In game theory once you take away the potential for negative repercussions for bad behavior, people start cheating and everyone stops cooperating. Let people punish the 'bad' people and cooperation comes back.

People are moral generally, but only when there is some threat to back it up.

Obama has no threat. Lieberman begs him to help him win in 2006. Obama sides with him over the progressive Lamont (PS if Lamont had won, maybe we could've gotten a medicare buy in at 55. Lieberman blocked that). Lieberman sides with McCain in 2008. Obama refused to retaliate. Lieberman then helped stall health care reform. Obama refused to retaliate.

You need some threat of force to keep people compliant, like it or not. Not because 100% of people are 100% bad 100% of the time. But because 10% of people are bad 95% of the time, and w/o those threats that 10% intimidate the other 90% of society.

Even in the senate, it isn't that 100% of dem senators are bad politicians. It is that 5-10 are untrustworthy or corporate. The other 50 are fairly decent.


Threaten to take away Ben Nelson's chairmanship, then see how he votes on extending unemployment benefits.

[RandomThoughts]

23. Heh, that would be funny if that is in game theory.

People are moral generally, but only when there is some threat to back it up.

That is not correct, it could be said people can act for selfish reason and even in immoral ways by most definitions. However there are many people that do morale things without promise of reward or punishment, unless you say 'feeling' a certain way is that reward or punishment.


You could say for some their conscious is there reward punishment mechanism, those are those that act on what they think best.

For some they need outside enforcement to get them to do things.

That would be the same as the two conditions I mentioned in previous post.


I do not disagree that enforcement is needed for some people, I only say that is not what I would want to do, so someone else can do that. But I agree some people require enforcement. I have said enforcement is half the law many times.

I will let someone else judge if Ben Nelson needs a form of threat of punishment

[blondeatlast]

10. A comment by Bill Press? Oh, hell, now we're REALLY in trouble! nt

[wryter2000]

19. If we've lost Bill Press

We can just hang it up right now. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Monique1]

13. They won't be happy until Obama comes out with boxing gloves on and

doing a kick dance.

[AnArmyVeteran]

15. I'd like to see an Obama-Tanman cage match.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

16. Yep, he might as well resign. What a failure he's been.

Who needs to let him finish his term? We know the rest of it is doomed to suck.

:rofl:

Oh yeah...unrec.

[dionysus]

17. oh shit.. Bill Press has spoken?! get me to the fainting couch, and grab the smelling salts...

[ellenfl]

21. i feared gwb. eom