Respect and submission, are they the same?

[ABikerSailor]

What is wrong with a woman wanting to please her husband?

If I was married I would want to please my wife.

How can one love another without wanting the other to be happy?

Nothing at all. Her choice. However, there's a lot wrong with a President doing it. The President, regardless of gender, race or any other personal factor, should always put the nation first. To do less violates their oath of office.

The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I don't see anything in there about putting the country above their family. I would personally vote against anyone who said that the country would come before their family, and would do my best to make sure anyone that ran against them would win the election. I see no reason to trust anyone that does not put their family first.

So.........if your family was Grover Norquist or the Koch brothers and they said to sell out the country, you would?

According to you, family comes first.

According to many in the military, country comes first.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It ain't the same in the S & M clubs, that's for sure...

I've never been, but that's rather disappointing.

Me neither...but I have a co-worker "in the lifestyle". I mean, I'm not opposed to a little light bondage every so often, but the stories I hear...

You should try it, you might find out it is more fun than you think. My experience is the people that are the most shocked are the ones who are most likely to actually enjoy it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If true, then I agree it is dishonest. It means she's playing her followers for chumps.

Name a dozen DC politicians that don't.

Why a dozen? Afraid I can come up with 11?

While I think we are agreed that too many D.C. politicians are lying scum-buckets, if the only bar we set for them is "Well, everyone else is doing it", then we'll never see any improvement among them.

I bet you couldn't come up with more than 5. I can think of three off the top of my head, one of them is currently running, the other two are left wing wackos that might end up running against Obama, one of them has called for his impeachment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In this context, submission does not mean rolling over and doing whatever the husband commands his wife to do. There are caveats that require the husband perform duties to his wife also.

I could post link after link, copy and paste, even from "Bible For Dummies" book that could simplify this for many, but I think I would be wasting my time.

If one truly wants to understand what Bachmann meant, they need to read beyond Ephesians 5:22

Disclaiimer: I am not a bible thumper, or a 'right wing loon'.
However, I do do my research before I post.

Really? Then why did she tell the story about not wanting to be a lawyer, but when her husband told her to, she "submitted" to him and did something she didn't want to do?

Because she was talking to an audience that would connect to it, kinda of like when Obama made the comment about bitterly clinging to guns and religion. That is why I like to throw comments like that up in people's faces, because they want to hold their side to a different standard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not understanding the outrage here, frankly. Because Bachmann had repeatedly said in her presidential campaign speeches that she believes women should be submissive to their husbands, people have a perfect right to question her further on that.

When Obama ran in 2008, he told an enraptured nation that Rev. Wright was like a father to him, and in his book he said that Rev. Wright was the most influential person in his life. Well, folks turned around and took a hard look at the most influential person in this would-be president's life and discovered a controversial, anti-white viewpoint permeating the good reverend's sermons.

Did people have a right to question Obama to see if he shared the beliefs of the most influential man in his life? You bet they did. I, for one, wanted to know the answer to that question... a question which Obama also dodged. So I didn't vote for him. (Didn't vote for McCain either.)

Bachmann is a public figure asking for the most important job in the land. If she cannot stand behind the beliefs that she is campaigning on when asked a direct question, then I can't blame people for questioning her veracity.

I seriously don't see what all the hubbub is about.

Hillary was married to a man who used to be president, did people have a perfect right to ask her if he would be in charge? Should they have asked her if she made the decisions when he Bill was supposed to be running things?

By the way, she is not asking for any job, she is asking for her party's nomination for that job. I know most people do not understand the difference, but it is still there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

which one is you Dean?.....its gotta be the guy in front.....otherwise you look like a fat chick....

I'm not a Republican. I don't play that game.

GOP Committee Investigating $2K Trip to Topless Bondage-Themed Club - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Federal Election Commission filings show that the Republican National Committee in February spent about $1,946 at Voyeur West Hollywood, the Daily Caller first reported, describing the location as a "bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex."

you gotta be a Republican?......

Everyone in San Francisco is a Republican, that is why they have the Folsom Street Fair there.

FOLSOM STREET FAIR

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Michelle Bachmann was asked a question at the debates.............

Garrett Kling Op-Ed: Give Me a Submissive President in 2012 - Op-Ed - Fox Nation

Now......let's look at what Dictionary.com has to say...........

Now...........not for nothing, but if Bachmann has repeatedly stated that a woman is to submit to her husband (according to her beliefs in the Bible), shouldn't we be electing her husband to be president rather than his wife?

I mean..........he's the ultimate "head" of the woman, according to her. Do we really want that in a president?

You were in the Navy, you know exactly what it means to submit yourself to another person. Can you explain the difference between respecting a superior and submitting to him in the military chain of command? Can you do it in a way that does not render the dictionary definitions of the words completely wrong, yet totally agree with them in all points?

Actually, no. I don't know what it means to submit to another person. I do however know that I'm supposed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to obey all LAWFUL orders given to me by those of higher rank.

If I was submissive, I wouldn't defy an unlawful order.

Try again.

You try again.

Submission does not mean you do whatever you are told simply because some idiot says to. Submission means you accept that another person has the authority to tell you what to do. If you were not submissive when you were in the Navy you would not have obeyed any orders, and would not have made it through boot camp.

Come to think of it, that might explain a few things.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing at all. Her choice. However, there's a lot wrong with a President doing it. The President, regardless of gender, race or any other personal factor, should always put the nation first. To do less violates their oath of office.

I don't see anything in there about putting the country above their family. I would personally vote against anyone who said that the country would come before their family, and would do my best to make sure anyone that ran against them would win the election. I see no reason to trust anyone that does not put their family first.

So.........if your family was Grover Norquist or the Koch brothers and they said to sell out the country, you would?

According to you, family comes first.

According to many in the military, country comes first.

How do you get that out of anything I said?

Putting your family first does not mean anything like what you are trying to twist it into. It means that you are doing what you do because it helps your family, and you want to make their life better. Any man or woman should understand that concept, the fact that I have to explain it to anyone is sad.

And it also proves that you are not actually trying to learn, you are simply attacking because someone disagrees with you, and that makes you an idiot.

 

[Divine Wind]

I would personally vote against anyone who said that the country would come before their family, and would do my best to make sure anyone that ran against them would win the election. I see no reason to trust anyone that does not put their family first.

Disagreed. If terrorists captured a President's child and said "Nuke London or we'll kill the kid", I want a President who does what is best for the nation, not their family.

I liked President G. W. Bush, but his main flaw was putting personal loyalty ahead of the best interests of the nation. When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales got into hot water and it brought D.C. to a stand still, President Bush should have had him resign for the good of nation. Instead, the President stood behind his friend while Congress spun itself silly with investigations. President Ronald Reagan is an example of a President who put the nation first. He would, without a doubt, have let Gonzales go in this instance, but would have taken care of him by other means.

As President, the country should come first. It's not just a job. They swear an oath. If they can't do that, then they should resign. It's one reason why President Clinton screwed up when he put his personal affairs ahead of the nation's best interests. He should have resigned if he couldn't put the needs of the nation ahead of his own.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I'm not a Republican. I don't play that game.

GOP Committee Investigating $2K Trip to Topless Bondage-Themed Club - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Federal Election Commission filings show that the Republican National Committee in February spent about $1,946 at Voyeur West Hollywood, the Daily Caller first reported, describing the location as a "bondage-themed nightclub featuring topless women dancers imitating lesbian sex."

you gotta be a Republican?......

Everyone in San Francisco is a Republican, that is why they have the Folsom Street Fair there.

FOLSOM STREET FAIR

i dont think Dean will buy that QW.....you sure thats not someplace in Texas?....

 

[ClosedCaption]

When do you expect to see the right wing attack websters to change their "liberal" definitions?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You were in the Navy, you know exactly what it means to submit yourself to another person. Can you explain the difference between respecting a superior and submitting to him in the military chain of command? Can you do it in a way that does not render the dictionary definitions of the words completely wrong, yet totally agree with them in all points?

Actually, no. I don't know what it means to submit to another person. I do however know that I'm supposed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and to obey all LAWFUL orders given to me by those of higher rank.

If I was submissive, I wouldn't defy an unlawful order.

Try again.

You try again.

Submission does not mean you do whatever you are told simply because some idiot says to. Submission means you accept that another person has the authority to tell you what to do. If you were not submissive when you were in the Navy you would not have obeyed any orders, and would not have made it through boot camp.

Come to think of it, that might explain a few things.

Actually, I had an E-8 who didn't realize that I had positional authority over him (I was the head of MEPS as an E-6), and he would try to get me to do all sorts of outlaw shit and I'd tell him to get elsewhere as he didn't know what he was talking about. There were a few times that he tried to get me to do something by giving me an order, but because I knew the book, I would tell him his orders weren't lawful and therefore he could be elsewhere.

During the 2 1/2 years I was head of Navy office for MEPS, we never missed goal, not once. When I left? They missed goal 10 months in a row because the person who relieved me didn't have a spine.

No. I've NEVER been submissive to ANYONE in the Navy, which is why I've fought anything from an E-8 all the way up to an O-4 and won, as well as that I've got no less than 3 Navy Achievement Medals.

Submission is the relationship between a slave and a master, and regardless of how stupid the master is, the slave does what they want anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't think it's okay just because everyone is doing it...I just don't see a whole lot that CAN be done about it. We don't elect our politicians, other people BUY them for us...

I'm not bought. Are you bought? While money and fear can have a lot of influence on people, those same people ultimately make their own decisions. Most people are pretty sensible. We shouldn't let ourselves fall into the trap of believing the idiots we see on television constitute a majority of our fellow Americans. Television both provides entertainment and is a business. What passes for "news" these days is often what is ever most controversial since controversy sells. Which show is more likely to gain higher ratings? A 30 minute special about high school kids helping feed the homeless in Topeka or a teenage gang in a Detroit shithole neighborhood?

Same goes in politics. Those who make money in television make more money showing the nutjobs and controversy rather than the thousands of government workers, including politicians, who are quietly working hard to make our country better.

Just like Jay Leno's old bit call "Jaywalking" where they ask "the man on the street" questions, we shouldn't be fooled into thinking many people are this dumb. They may ask a hundred people these questions, but only show the 1 or 2 truly funny, but completely ignorant, responses.

The Best Of Jaywalking - Final Jay Leno Tonight Show | Daily Video Blog - Videolicious.tv

The bottom line is that most people aren't bought and they aren't stupid.

WE aren't bought, the legislators we elect are bought.

 

[Stephanie]

Michelle Bachmann was asked a question at the debates.............

Out of all the things the President of the United States should be, it would seem absurd to think of that person as submissive. As the most powerful person in the country, the president must exude force, show self-confidence and be aggressive.
But be submissive?

At Thursday’s GOP Presidential debate, many believed Michele Bachmann’s answer regarding the question of submitting to her husband as showing weakness. Many critics questioned her perspective on leadership and authority.
Yet the idea of submission turns out to be central to what the President of the United States must do in order to lead our country.

Bachmann answered by saying submission equals respect. “I respect my husband,” she responded. “He’s a wonderful godly man. We respect each other and we love each other.”
The words respect and love would not be found as synonyms for submission in any thesaurus. Submission is often used as a negative connotation dealing with slavery, abuse or manipulation. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines submission as “an act of submitting to the authority or control of another.”

It appears that submission lacks freedom.

Bachmann’s belief of submission differs from what has been ingrained in today’s culture. How could it be that submission equals respect or even love?



Read more: Garrett Kling Op-Ed: Give Me a Submissive President in 2012 - Op-Ed - Fox Nation

Garrett Kling Op-Ed: Give Me a Submissive President in 2012 - Op-Ed - Fox Nation

Now......let's look at what Dictionary.com has to say...........

sub·mit   /səbˈmɪt/ Show Spelled [suhb-mit] Show IPA verb, -mit·ted, -mit·ting.
verb (used with object)
1. to give over or yield to the power or authority of another (often used reflexively).
2. to subject to some kind of treatment or influence.
3. to present for the approval, consideration, or decision of another or others: to submit a plan; to submit an application.
4. to state or urge with deference; suggest or propose (usually followed by a clause): I submit that full proof should be required.

Now...........not for nothing, but if Bachmann has repeatedly stated that a woman is to submit to her husband (according to her beliefs in the Bible), shouldn't we be electing her husband to be president rather than his wife?

I mean..........he's the ultimate "head" of the woman, according to her. Do we really want that in a president?

I dont want my president to have ANYONE I didnt have a chance to vote for telling them what to do.


If she doesnt know the differance between being respectful and Obeying then maybe she wont RESPECT what the American people send her to do.

Then I suppose you were yelling at the top of your lungs when Clinton put Hillary in charge of changing our health care, or MaBell Obama sticking her nose in how our kids are fed in schools? They weren't ELECTED

And when Hillary Stood by Billy boy and his affair with Monica, wasn't she being SUBMISSIVE as you all like to go on about.
what a friggen joke. They WOULD NEVER ask a man that question who was running for President.

 

[Divine Wind]

WE aren't bought, the legislators we elect are bought.

No doubt some politicians sell their souls to those who contribute the most to their campaigns. Remember the fiasco of the Clintons selling the Lincoln bedroom in the White House?

Yes, there are scumbags in Washington, but there are also good people too. Colin Powell, James Webb and many I'm not even aware of who are quietly trying to better our government.

Regardless of how much money flows into the coffers of these sellouts, "We, the People" still control the situation by our presence in the voting booth.

People are bitching about the Tea Party holding our government hostage. Complaints about how a minority group has pressured the majority. Why? Because they are active. They get out the vote and they push politicians to respond or they vote them out! I don't agree with all the things the Tea Party does but lets not kid ourselves and deny their effectiveness. If they can make it work, then why can't any other group of motivated Americans?

 

[AVG-JOE]

WE aren't bought, the legislators we elect are bought.

No doubt some politicians sell their souls to those who contribute the most to their campaigns. Remember the fiasco of the Clintons selling the Lincoln bedroom in the White House?

Yes, there are scumbags in Washington, but there are also good people too. Colin Powell, James Webb and many I'm not even aware of who are quietly trying to better our government.

Regardless of how much money flows into the coffers of these sellouts, "We, the People" still control the situation by our presence in the voting booth.

People are bitching about the Tea Party holding our government hostage. Complaints about how a minority group has pressured the majority. Why? Because they are active. They get out the vote and they push politicians to respond or they vote them out! I don't agree with all the things the Tea Party does but lets not kid ourselves and deny their effectiveness. If they can make it work, then why can't any other group of motivated Americans?

Absolutely correct! Two gold stars and a cookie for Divine.Wind!

The one and ONLY thing truly wrong with the TEA Party Movement is their backwards and red-neck approach to dealing with social issues like weed, gay marriage and abortion by using government as a big-ass club to force their will on to the rest of us.

On the other hand, would the movement stand on "Just say 'no' to touching the current tax code"? I've talked to many T's who're hip to rebuilding the tax code fairly, Marco Rubio for one... I think the T's would shed their stance of protection of the status quo tax code if it were for a rebuild to a more simple and fair way to collect revenue from ourselves. Now, if we could just get them to lighten up on the 'Holier than thou' bullshit, and focus on governing a free and tolerant nation.

 

[Divine Wind]

I think the T's would shed their stance of protection of the status quo tax code if it were for a rebuild to a more simple and fair way to collect revenue from ourselves. Now, if we could just get them to lighten up on the 'Holier than thou' bullshit, and focus on governing a free and tolerant nation.

All it takes is activism by concerned Americans. This forum is filled with people talking about conspiracies and how we don't have a voice in this country, but I'll bet a dollar to doughnuts those same people are not political activists attempting to motivate people to vote for a better America.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think the T's would shed their stance of protection of the status quo tax code if it were for a rebuild to a more simple and fair way to collect revenue from ourselves. Now, if we could just get them to lighten up on the 'Holier than thou' bullshit, and focus on governing a free and tolerant nation.

All it takes is activism by concerned Americans. This forum is filled with people talking about conspiracies and how we don't have a voice in this country, but I'll bet a dollar to doughnuts those same people are not political activists attempting to motivate people to vote for a better America.

To the Party Party!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

WE aren't bought, the legislators we elect are bought.

No doubt some politicians sell their souls to those who contribute the most to their campaigns. Remember the fiasco of the Clintons selling the Lincoln bedroom in the White House?

Yes, there are scumbags in Washington, but there are also good people too. Colin Powell, James Webb and many I'm not even aware of who are quietly trying to better our government.

Regardless of how much money flows into the coffers of these sellouts, "We, the People" still control the situation by our presence in the voting booth.

People are bitching about the Tea Party holding our government hostage. Complaints about how a minority group has pressured the majority. Why? Because they are active. They get out the vote and they push politicians to respond or they vote them out! I don't agree with all the things the Tea Party does but lets not kid ourselves and deny their effectiveness. If they can make it work, then why can't any other group of motivated Americans?

The tea party is any other group of Americans...they are corporate owned.

Q&A with Tea Party leader Dick Armey | FreedomWorks

'Tea party' leader Dick Armey, Republican House majority leader from 1995 to 2003, now co-chairs FreedomWorks, a major force in the tea party movement. He was the speaker at the June 16 Monitor lunch in Washington, D.C.

 

[Divine Wind]

To the Party Party!!

Hear, hear!

Life is too short to wake up with regrets.
So love the people who treat you right.
Forget about the ones who don't.
Believe everything happens for a reason.
If you get a second chance grab it with both hands.
If it changes your life let it.
Nobody said life would be easy, they just promised it would be worth it!

author unknown