So, in a debate, I am not allowed to have an opinion????

 

I heard or read a comment somewhere today that seemed to hit the nail on the head.

 

Has any country's leader ever been so eager and excited about seeing the demise of his country from a world leader to just another one of the countries?

 

It would be understandable for other countries to talk about the demise of the USA but the talk of our demise is being heralded by our own President.

 

Interesting.

 

Where is he "heralding the demise" of our country? Sounds like something Hannity or one of his clones would say.

 

Again...what is going to change if it was a bow?

Where is he "heralding the demise" of our country? Sounds like something Hannity or one of his clones would say.

 

Again...what is going to change if it was a bow?

 

I guess I am just showing my American arrogance that says the USA President should not be bowing to another country's leader.:idunno:

 

He talked about how it is a New World Order of 20 some countries and our role in this world has changed where we are not necessarily the leader we once were. Not sure I can find the artlicle or link. I read it at school and BGP is blocked at school and I could not post it.

 

I can't stand to watch Hannity. He gets on my nerves. Same with Olberman. Anyone that is so one-sided on a candidate that they will never admit that he does anything wrong falls into the same category with me that Hannity, Olberman, Matthews, etc, etc.

 

And before anyone says I did that with W, I ripped him on here and in emails I sent to the White House for his out of control spending before the 2004 elections.

 

I was extremely disappointed in the way the Republicans spent as if they were my teenage daughter.

I guess I am just showing my American arrogance that says the USA President should not be bowing to another country's leader.:idunno:

 

He talked about how it is a New World Order of 20 some countries and our role in this world has changed where we are not necessarily the leader we once were. Not sure I can find the artlicle or link. I read it at school and BGP is blocked at school and I could not post it.

 

I can't stand to watch Hannity. He gets on my nerves. Same with Olberman. Anyone that is so one-sided on a candidate that they will never admit that he does anything wrong falls into the same category with me that Hannity, Olberman, Matthews, etc, etc.

 

And before anyone says I did that with W, I ripped him on here and in emails I sent to the White House for his out of control spending before the 2004 elections.

 

I was extremely disappointed in the way the Republicans spent as if they were my teenage daughter.

 

Is any of that supposed to be an answer to "what will/would change if he did bow"?

Where is he "heralding the demise" of our country? Sounds like something Hannity or one of his clones would say.

 

Again...what is going to change if it was a bow?

 

I don't know anything about the author. He might very well be a Hannity clone, no clue who he is.

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/04/10/its_your_country_too,_mr_president?page=1

 

After all, it was Obama, not some envious anti-American leader, who noted with satisfaction that a new financial order is being created today by 20 countries, rather than by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy." And then added: "But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in."

 

It is passing strange for a world leader to celebrate his own country's decline. A few more such overseas tours, and Obama will have a lot more decline to celebrate.

Is any of that supposed to be an answer to "what will/would change if he did bow"?

 

yeah you missed it.

yeah you missed it.

 

Point it out then.

Point it out then.

 

Anything that is critical of Obama you are not willing to acknowledge as possibly having merit. No need to discuss this issue with you because you are not willing to acknowledge he might do something not correct.

 

I have said that it is inappropriate for the President of the US to bow to another foreign leader but that is probably just my USA arrogance that he pointed out that I have. He has stated during the campaign that we shouldn't be sucking up to Saudi's and then he bows to them.

 

Although more than the bow, their denial and "transparent" story that it was not a bow is insulting to our intelligence as citizens but in true fashion the O koolaid drinkers believe it and what I have a problem with. But that would be stating my opinion and you have asked me to refrain from stating my opinion in a P & R forum.

 

And before you say that I am not willing to acknowledge his good things, that would be incorrect.

 

I agree with his decision to go against his campaign pledge and not immediately pull troops out of Iraq.

 

I agree with his decision to break from the liberals in his party and put more troops into Afghanstan.

 

I agree with his statement that the Islamic world does not have Bush to blame their problems on anymore even though at home, he does the same thing.

 

I agree with his proposals to help out low income families even though I do not believe it is the government's job, nor as big of a problem as he says it is. He is simply pandering for votes.

Is any of that supposed to be an answer to "what will/would change if he did bow"?

 

First, he did bow. To suggest otherwise only damages your credibility.

 

Second, the bow isn't as important as the attitude that it reflects. Obama has such a distorted worldview that focuses so strongly on what he perceives as the shortcomings of the country he represents that he does not hesitate to subjugate himself to the undemocratic leader of a racist, religiously intolerant, and misogynistic country. If he had any balance in his worldview, he would be just as sensitive to Saudi Arabia's flaws if not more so given their severity. And while I understand the need to be friendly to Saudi Arabia, I see no need for Obama to humiliate himself and his country.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/1520326,CST-EDT-hunt10.article

That said, the president of the United States does not bow to kings. He is not only the chief of government, he's our head of state -- the equal of any monarch. The White House says Obama didn't bow, that he "grasped (Abdullah's) hand with two hands and he's taller than King Abdullah."

 

Sorry, but a videotape on YouTube doesn't quite back that up. Obama clearly bends his body toward the Arabian monarch, and Obama doesn't grasp both the king's hands until he's standing straight up. As for the he's-taller argument, the 6-foot-1-inch Obama towers over a lot of people, so we'd have seen him bowing during handshakes many times if that were the explanation. Furthermore, the king had his hand extended, so Obama didn't have to reach down an inordinate amount to grab it.

 

The Washington Times said Obama made a "servile gesture" that "belittled the power and independence of the United States."

 

What could give this issue legs is that it conforms to the view of his critics that the president spent too much time on his European tour seeming to apologize for America.

 

No one argues Obama went to London intending to bow with the cameras running so the world would see him. Likely it was some kind of spontaneous moment that, whatever the intent, just plain looks bad. We won't know what was going on in his head unless Obama tells us, and I suspect the White House is counting on the press of today's crises, from the economy to high seas piracy, to quickly push this episode out of the limelight

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_619822.html

 

In the least, it was an embarrassing protocol faux pas; Mr. Obama is not the king's subject but his equal. The Washington Times called it "a shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate." But "The Bow" actually was worse than that. It's a troubling metaphor for a deferential presidency.

 

Think North Korea. It provocatively fires a missile that, though it fails to deliver a "satellite" into Earth's orbit, represents a technological step that advances the communist country's ability -- or that of some other rogue state to which it sells the technology -- to someday deliver a nuclear warhead to Hawaii or Alaska. The president's response? Propose nuclear disarmament and urge United Nations action, which, predictably, never comes.

 

America doesn't bow, Mr. President. It leads. It's time you do so.

First, he did bow. To suggest otherwise only damages your credibility.

 

Second, the bow isn't as important as the attitude that it reflects. Obama has such a distorted worldview that focuses so strongly on what he perceives as the shortcomings of the country he represents that he does not hesitate to subjugate himself to the undemocratic leader of a racist, religiously intolerant, and misogynistic country. If he had any balance in his worldview, he would be just as sensitive to Saudi Arabia's flaws if not more so given their severity. And while I understand the need to be friendly to Saudi Arabia, I see no need for Obama to humiliate himself and his country.

 

Thank you. You said it much better than I.

Anything that is critical of Obama you are not willing to acknowledge as possibly having merit. No need to discuss this issue with you because you are not willing to acknowledge he might do something not correct.

 

I have said that it is inappropriate for the President of the US to bow to another foreign leader but that is probably just my USA arrogance that he pointed out that I have. He has stated during the campaign that we shouldn't be sucking up to Saudi's and then he bows to them.

 

Although more than the bow, their denial and "transparent" story that it was not a bow is insulting to our intelligence as citizens but in true fashion the O koolaid drinkers believe it and what I have a problem with. But that would be stating my opinion and you have asked me to refrain from stating my opinion in a P & R forum.

 

And before you say that I am not willing to acknowledge his good things, that would be incorrect.

 

I agree with his decision to go against his campaign pledge and not immediately pull troops out of Iraq.

 

I agree with his decision to break from the liberals in his party and put more troops into Afghanstan.

 

I agree with his statement that the Islamic world does not have Bush to blame their problems on anymore even though at home, he does the same thing.

 

I agree with his proposals to help out low income families even though I do not believe it is the government's job, nor as big of a problem as he says it is. He is simply pandering for votes.

 

I have not asked you to refrain from stating your opinions, so please don't present it as if I have done so. I have evidently touched a raw nerve, as there are now posts in three different threads relating to this. I said this in a PM to you, but I will do so publically now - I am sorry if I offended you. Hopefully this will take care of the personal issue and we can continue with P/R discussion.

 

I have been critical of things that President Obama has said. Check out this thread: http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=179170&page=2

 

As for actions, politically, I am usually one to wait to see how things are progressing before I denounce them. One big exception - the Iraq War.

 

I know that our role as leader and ally has been damaged in the eyes of many world citizens. Now some people will say that the opinion of others doesn't matter. I disagree. We cannot isolate ourselves AND be a leader at the same time. We do not exist in this world by ourselves. It's always better to have more friends than enemies.

 

If President Obama is responsible for decisions that I disagree with, I will be sure to say so. Likewise, when President Bush started promoting his plan for immigration reform, I was very vocal in my support of it. However, he (and I) got no where on that. It seems that people would rather that nothing be done, except rattle our saber as say "ship them out!" without any thought on the overwhelming logistics to this.

WOW!!!!!!!! I don't ever remember that.

He must be a real, not sure what the correct word is.:lol::lol::ohbrother:

 

Or maybe he said Lieutenant Dan .

I am as far right in the political spectrum as anyone I know, I have no problem with what the President did. It is no different than the President bowing to or kissing the ring of the Pope. Or bowing as is custom when meeting with the Japanese officials.

 

Much to do about nothing IMVHO.

Here's the question that maybe we should debate - What does it matter whether it is a bow or a position for a handshake? What it is, is less important, obviously, than what it is perceived to be. If it is a bow, does this mean that anything will be different now than it was the day before he did it?

 

In hindsight it must have mattered to the White House. They are now saying it was not a bow.