Is it too much to ask for people here to use a little respect

If someone has a title like Representative or Senator, is it to much to ask for people here to use that title. I see threads started saying stuff like Clinton did this or Kerry did that. These people are respected officials that have earned their title and we should be able to elevate ourselves above the barbarity of the GOP. I find it offensive that people are so disrespectful here. It just tends to highlight the decay of American society. Or do you think I'm just a bit pompous to even suggest such a horrible thing?

Commander-in-Chimp does not deserve such a title:).

I like His Lowness, Chimpy, and Dim Bulb the best! But here's what I really think of * :puke:

the title is assumed. I didn't think people cared about such things, but there you go, it never even occurred to me.

Some people don't like to type.

I think you're being pompous. This isn't a newspaper. If it were, we'd use the title on the first mention and the last name for the rest of the thread. But we all know who Daschle, Lieberman, Dean, Clark, and DeLay are. This is America; titles are optional. It would be nice if my mechanic called me "Mr. Teegarden" to my face but when I'm not there I fully expect him to refer to me as "Teegarden", "Dave", or "That guy who can't take care of his Land Cruiser."

they deserve no more respect than any other person walking down the street

Failure to use a politician's title on a discussion board does not equate to disrespect--it's just extra typing! Formal publications such as newpapers need to observe those rules, but we're just people talking. And besides, many such people don't deserve the kind of respect you ascribe to them.

There is never an intention on my part to speak respectfully of the chimp.

If he were elected maybe, but doubtful still.

Republicans are exluded, obviously.

You're definitely being pompous, if not a little anal.


Go have a few beers and come back later.

pResident George W. Bush
Chief Nazi George H.W. Bush
Crook Dick Cheney
Lunatic Donald Rumsfeld
Uncle Tom Colin Powell
Reptile Condoleeza Rice
Traitor Joe Lieberman
Vichy Democrat Dick Gephardt
Saint Paul Wellstone

The Right Honorable and High Reverend Holy Joe Lieberman.

His Holiness LordGodBush*.

so why call him President Clinton? I can't speak for others here, but I don't know any of these people well enough to call them by their first names. And what about Howard Dean? Is it Governor Dean or Doctor Dean or Governor/Doctor Dean? We should all be treated with respect mr. or ms bandit, not just a person in authority. Its just common courtesy. You can call me anything you want to though, I imagine I've heard it all.

The proper way to address a former president of the US is with the last official title he held before becoming president ("Governor Clinton" for Bill), but this has fallen out of practice.

That would be the stupidest protocol I've ever seen. There is no basis for going back "two offices". Once a President, always a President. Except for unelected frauds, of course.

So there's only one "President" at any given time. Kind of like how there is only one "Captain" on the bridge of a boat, even if there is more than one officer on board with the rank of Captain.

So yes, he is President Clinton, and we still have President Bush (I), President Reagan, President Carter (wild cheers), and President Ford.

our founding fathers made clear that, once their term in office was finished, former presidents were not to be addressed as "President" because somebody else held that title.

for example, after his term as President, George Washington was addressed as "General Washington"

...have to refer to Clinton as President Clinton, won't we?

By the way, the title of "President" used to be the correct title given to ALL former Presidents.

we're not AP reporters, here, Mr. Bandit.

I find it funny that you'd talk about titles, with all the disrespectful things that are said about these folks.

Does this count for Il Dunce & the BFEE?

If I write about President Clinton or Gov. (or Dr.) Dean or Senator Kerry or Rep. Gephardt, I'll refer to them using title once. Then as I continue my thoughts I'll probably refer to them just by their names, or maybe, if there's no one else w/ the same title in my post, by title.

Whenever I discuss * in email or msg boards where Republicans are present, I call him President Bush. I do it exactly the same way as I wrote above. The title isn't necessarily a sign of respect; it's a title. I wouldn't call my father's friends by their first names, nor would I say "Hey, Johnson, how's it hangin'?" I'd say "Mr. Johnson." Same principle.

(Of course, I don't even know who my father's friends are . . . and they surely don't know my father has three biological daughters. I'm sure he only talks about the Atheist and the Divorcée -- not the Lesbian. ;))

n/t

that's what you're asking for

"Show respect?" "The decay of American society?"

I don't believe this post is sincere. If so, you need to seriously get out more or stop hanging around with 80 year old conservatives.

I expected we'd be chided for not respecting each other. At least that would have made sense.

Respect for people who have for the most part helped to pervert one of the best systems of govt in the world? Not a chance.

I'm NOT going to respect someone merely because he or she happens to have an impressive title. Were I to meet such a person in public, etiquette and protocol would dictate that I address them initially by title and afterward as Mr./Ms./Doctor, but such niceties are a bit much for a relatively informal discussion forum, where the only thing required for clarity is proper naming of the person being discussed.

These people (bush, clinton, lieberman,dean etc)deserve no more respect then any other joe off the street. The decay of American society???? You're kidding right? What exactly is 'American society' and what evidence is there to support your notion that it is decaying?

You may not be pompous but you're certainly naive if you think these folks are any better then you or me.

America used to be a better place. There used to be traditions and respect given. I have to agree though that respect is earned and not just awarded. I therefore can never refer to Bush* as President. I will however always refer to Senator Kerry as such.

you made for yourself. Be consistent. Either you call all officials by their titles or stop telling us we ought to. You don't get to have it both ways.

I don't recall a time in my lifetime when peole used formal titles in informal conversations. I agree with the previous poster. Go have a few beers and relax.

I was under the impression that we went to war over the forced recognition of titles.

The Caning of Sumner (May 1856)
<http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/sumenu.htm>

...or how about this more recent event?

Rep. Burton Won't Apologize For 'Scumbag' Remark
<http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/23/campaign.finance/>


If the members of Congress can't treat each other with "respect", why should we?

Made this one a coupla years ago, left out the titles, though. Damn. Didn't mean any disrespect.

The framers had debates over honorifics. I'm on the side of those who said Americans should not have to bow before anyone just because of a title before their name. What's needed in the US is less token respect for titles and positions and more of the old fashioned egalitarianism and irreverance that made the nation great.

I feel like I already know him!

I don't have a problem with referring to people by only their last names, but I DO mind referring to them by only their first names.

called by their first names as well. "Senator Clinton" distinguishes her from her husband, President Clinton.

News articles may refer to "Senator Clinton" once, but they don't do it through the whole article. After a while, its just "Clinton."

Anyway.. the short answer is yes, its too much to ask. No I won't stop doing it. I don't consider it disrespectful.

Oh yeah. Respected? Oh yeah. The only reason I generally include a 'title' is for identification purposes.

honestly, it's pompous. I can see using titles when I am writing a letter to the editor but come on, we are in the DU.

we don't have honorifics for mail-carriers...

Although I have been known to say President Gore.

Just kidding. False aggrandizing helps no one. They put their pants on one leg at a time just like you or me.

when the DU's favorite whipping boy Senator John Kerry is under discussion.

There's a tendency in Minnesota, at least among people who are active, to refer to elected officials by their first names and that includes when speaking directly to them. (Of course Senator Wellstone always told people to call him Paul if they addressed him by his title - maybe he started this).

Perhaps I need to write to Mark and apologize for never addressing him as "Senator Dayton". How very rude of me.

However, I do always use the title "That Weasel" when referring to That Weasel Normie Coleman.

How about "Squatter-in-Chief"?

How about "Herr Coke-n-Smoke"?

Here's my bottom line...anyone that participated in the Coup of 2000 by the NeoCon Junta deserves the title of "traitor", nothing more and nothing less. Likewise, anyone stupid enough to have voted "yes" for the Patriot Act deserves little better. I think I'm actually cutting those people some slack when I don't call them "treasonous bastards".

"Respect"?? Sorry...fresh out.

How about at speeches or political rallies? "We want Dean! We want Dean!" Should we have to say Governor Dean?

When speaking at a formal occasion I would definitely use the term senator, governor, or president(with the exception of Bush). I see no problem with it here or when chatting with friends.