it wasn't a bow.............

[Yurt]

the fact obama gave a mere head nod to the queen and a full bow to a muslim king speaks volumes....

 

[AnnECUCherry]

the fact obama gave a mere head nod to the queen and a full bow to a muslim king speaks volumes....

Yurt, krotch, Pub, C, et al.: We have all been well aware from the beginning of this thread that U.S. conservatives consider President Obama's greeting a diplomatic faux pas. You people have attached all sorts of meaning to it ranging from simply "it's just not done" to "Obama just openly gave authority to the king."

It has also been obvious that neither the world press nor Saudi citizens been reluctant to express their opinions on what President Obama did and said during his visit to Europe.

None of them, however, have attached any significance to the president's greeting.

Were your interpretations accurate, they would be a topic of great discussion elsewhere in the world.

They aren't.

Therefore, as I have previously said, your accusations are false and amount to nothing more than a tempest in a tarradiddle teacup.

Perhaps y'all should move on to claiming that the president was speaking in code to his otherworld masters at the Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn when he said, "That's a wild thing. It's like a dragon-looking thing." and asked, "Are there any wild things here? I just want to make sure."

Why is it important that the president determine for certain whether or not there are any "wild things" -- "dragon-looking" things, in particular -- inside the gates of the White House? Are they connected to the Somalian pirates? Or is that an inside joke about Republicans that he shares only with certain ticketed guests to the Executive Mansion?

You know, he actually roared at those poor innocent little kids. Isn't that a violation of protocol -- maybe even felony child abuse?

Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Star]

Really ... can you read the minds of the "others"? If so, enlighten us, because it seems that since all the focus has been placed on Obama no one even asked the "others".

If this had happened with Bush in office (surprised it didn't) the right would be crying for war and the left whining about how Bush screwed up, now it's Obama it seems the roles have reversed. Here's the thing, why not look at a middle ground here and consider that?

why do you insist on coming up with your own theories and then when asked about how those theories can be accurate given the facts, you deflect and ask me to consider the middle ground? if you can't answer the questions, just say so.

i don't care about what the right allegedly would have done, i care about the facts.

fact:

obama bowed down to a muslim king

fact:

no other head of state bowed to the muslim king

fact:

obama is the first US president to bow down before a muslim king

fact:

the white house lied about it by trying to claim obama reached down with "two" hands when in fact obama bowed down with only one hand.

there is no middle ground, the whitehouse lied, tried to cover it up. those are the facts.

I did address these, but due to a lack of lateral thinking you have ignored them. The lies of the White house I addressed much early "really, the White House lied? That's odd."

Yup yup -- spot on Kitten. I think the rightys have become so accustomed to the White House lying to them that they can't recognize the truth when it hits them -right- between the eyes.

But this conversation has become redundantly boring. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we could have this discussion with the rightwing extremists about President Obama shaking the hand of a pipsqueak King. But the extremist's have offered no proof, none, nada, that they have any evidence that anything other than a big man shook hands with a little man.

But if the righty's ever do come up with anything other than a rightwing extremist's opinion, let me know -- I'll be waiting on a different thread.

 

[Yurt]

yes thats it...i'm now convinced it was no big deal because "they" aren't talking about it....thats it, thats the key...

first off, that is not true, second, that proves absolutely nothing, that the liberal media is not talking about...wooopeee

the whitehouse flat out lying about the event shows it was in fact something more that they are covering up. the fact you guys so desperately keep referring to how "they" aren't talking about it and how it means nothing is telling. you guys can't even admit he bowed and you can't even be honest and discuss the difference with the queen who is shorter than the king.

the outright blind denial, seems like dishonesty, from the left is humorous and shows me that this is something more than even i thought.

 

[manu1959]

why do you insist on coming up with your own theories and then when asked about how those theories can be accurate given the facts, you deflect and ask me to consider the middle ground? if you can't answer the questions, just say so.

i don't care about what the right allegedly would have done, i care about the facts.

fact:

obama bowed down to a muslim king

fact:

no other head of state bowed to the muslim king

fact:

obama is the first US president to bow down before a muslim king

fact:

the white house lied about it by trying to claim obama reached down with "two" hands when in fact obama bowed down with only one hand.

there is no middle ground, the whitehouse lied, tried to cover it up. those are the facts.

I did address these, but due to a lack of lateral thinking you have ignored them. The lies of the White house I addressed much early "really, the White House lied? That's odd."

Yup yup -- spot on Kitten. I think the rightys have become so accustomed to the White House lying to them that they can't recognize the truth when it hits them -right- between the eyes.

But this conversation has become redundantly boring. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we could have this discussion with the rightwing extremists about President Obama shaking the hand of a pipsqueak King. But the extremist's have offered no proof, none, nada, that they have any evidence that anything other than a big man shook hands with a little man.

But if the righty's ever do come up with anything other than a rightwing extremist's opinion, let me know -- I'll be waiting on a different thread.

the white house said he bent over to shake his hand because he was short and obama was using both hands....watch the video, his right arm is bent which means he didn't have to bend over and the second hand comes in after he stands back up....not before....further the queen of england is shorter than the saudi king and he didn't bend over....so now you are lying....

the point is he bowed deeply to the king of saudi arabia....if i recall you all used to say bush should have invaded saudi because that is where all the 911 guys came from and they are raping the us on oil prices and bush is buddies with the saudis....but now you all love the king of saudi and feel obama needs to show respect by bowing or not bowing or whatever suits you this week....

 

[krotchdog]

the fact obama gave a mere head nod to the queen and a full bow to a muslim king speaks volumes....

Yurt, krotch, Pub, C, et al.: We have all been well aware from the beginning of this thread that U.S. conservatives consider President Obama's greeting a diplomatic faux pas. You people have attached all sorts of meaning to it ranging from simply "it's just not done" to "Obama just openly gave authority to the king."

It has also been obvious that neither the world press nor Saudi citizens been reluctant to express their opinions on what President Obama did and said during his visit to Europe.

None of them, however, have attached any significance to the president's greeting.

Were your interpretations accurate, they would be a topic of great discussion elsewhere in the world.

They aren't.

Therefore, as I have previously said, your accusations are false and amount to nothing more than a tempest in a tarradiddle teacup.

Perhaps y'all should move on to claiming that the president was speaking in code to his otherworld masters at the Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn when he said, "That's a wild thing. It's like a dragon-looking thing." and asked, "Are there any wild things here? I just want to make sure."

Why is it important that the president determine for certain whether or not there are any "wild things" -- "dragon-looking" things, in particular -- inside the gates of the White House? Are they connected to the Somalian pirates? Or is that an inside joke about Republicans that he shares only with certain ticketed guests to the Executive Mansion?

You know, he actually roared at those poor innocent little kids. Isn't that a violation of protocol -- maybe even felony child abuse?

Enquiring minds want to know.

You are amazing. You keep speaking of foriegn papers as if you read every paper that there is. First you will have to be fluent in at least Chinese, Spanish, French, and German, are you, if you are great, than you will have to subscribe to all these papers, do you. I guess you could read them on line, how many of the different papers in different languages have you read. I would say ZERO. So if you expect me to back down in the least I will have to first see you back off on the assertion that you are able to read and write in all the languages of the world and then take the time to read each and every editorial and each and every letter from those who write into the papers.

You are telling us what you think and showing us how you think, you assume, and you portray that as evidence.

Its not important to me what the hell Obama did other than every president appeases the king of slaves.

What is important to me is people think and you amply demonstrate that you do not.

Your assumption of what the world thinks is of no consequense to the USA. We are refugees or the tyrants whos opinion you are putting too much value in. An opinion you have no idea of.

I am still waiting for the more important answer, are calling you CARMEN BIN LADEN a liar.

Her opinion matters more than yours ever will and she is disgusted that Obama bowed.

 

[user_name_guest]

Next time Obama should stick out his tongue. What's wrong with sticking out your tongue. Michael Jordan use to do it with the Chicago Bulls and he won six championship rings.

 

[Yurt]

Obama bows before Saudi king

In a week of much pomp and circumstance, formalities and photo-ops, President Barack Obama has incited much debate about his body language towards different world leaders while attending the G20 summit in London.

President Barack Obama, who could barely kneel before Queen Elizabeth, and who couldn't even give France's First Lady a peck on the cheek, was snapped by photographers nearly prostrating himself before Saudi King Abdullah.

Democrats (i.e. CBS News, AOL, NBC News) often displayed former President George W. Bush holding hands with the Saudi King when the latter visited the US in 2005. Yet, as of Friday afternoon, no major US news outlet wanted to touch on Obama’s full-blown bow.

World News Examiner: Obama bows before Saudi king

click the link for videos that show the difference when obama met the queen and when obama met the king....any rational person will note the vast difference and conclude obama bowed....

the last paragraph says alot about this novel theory that just because not everybody is talking about it, it means nothing...note the mass hypocrisy

 

[krotchdog]

Newspapers mean nothing, they are not news at all, just tools of propaganda. Who owns them and what do the people who own them own, stocks, corporations, farms. What are the holdings of the papers or what corporations own papers.

 

[manu1959]

Newspapers mean nothing, they are not news at all, just tools of propaganda. Who owns them and what do the people who own them own, stocks, corporations, farms. What are the holdings of the papers or what corporations own papers.

so anyone that writes or edits for a newspaper is corrupt and only writes what the head of the coroporation says to write....would that apply to all media sources then.....

 

[user_name_guest]

I can't wait until the day that newspapers vanish. Thank god for the Internet.

 

[manu1959]

I can't wait until the day that newspapers vanish. Thank god for the Internet.

yes because non of the internet sources are corrupt, biased.....or do the biding of their employers....not to mention people just making shit up in the basements....

 

[user_name_guest]

I can't wait until the day that newspapers vanish. Thank god for the Internet.

yes because non of the internet sources are corrupt, biased.....or do the biding of their employers....not to mention people just making shit up in the basements....

You don't waste paper on the Internet like you do with newspapers. The only thing useful for newspapers = packing and pee rags. We shouldn't support dinosaur organizations. Especially when they are nearing extinction.

 

[manu1959]

I can't wait until the day that newspapers vanish. Thank god for the Internet.

yes because non of the internet sources are corrupt, biased.....or do the biding of their employers....not to mention people just making shit up in the basements....

You don't waste paper on the Internet like you do with newspapers. The only thing useful for newspapers = packing and pee rags. We shouldn't support dinosaur organizations. Especially when they are nearing extinction.

my guess is the internet burns more energy that printing a newspaper.....

but your original argument was corruption and bias.....how is the internet going to stop that....same people different medium....not to mention the crackpots....

 

[user_name_guest]

yes because non of the internet sources are corrupt, biased.....or do the biding of their employers....not to mention people just making shit up in the basements....

You don't waste paper on the Internet like you do with newspapers. The only thing useful for newspapers = packing and pee rags. We shouldn't support dinosaur organizations. Especially when they are nearing extinction.

my guess is the internet burns more energy that printing a newspaper.....

but your original argument was corruption and bias.....how is the internet going to stop that....same people different medium....not to mention the crackpots....

I never made that argument of corruption and biases. More like i hope the newspaper industry vanishes in thin air.

 

[pete]

I can't wait until the day that newspapers vanish. Thank god for the Internet.

Then they will tax the shit out of it as well!

 

[manu1959]

You don't waste paper on the Internet like you do with newspapers. The only thing useful for newspapers = packing and pee rags. We shouldn't support dinosaur organizations. Especially when they are nearing extinction.

my guess is the internet burns more energy that printing a newspaper.....

but your original argument was corruption and bias.....how is the internet going to stop that....same people different medium....not to mention the crackpots....

I never made that argument of corruption and biases. More like i hope the newspaper industry vanishes in thin air.

sorry krtoch dog made that claim.....that is what i get for trying to work and post at the same time....

 

[krotchdog]

Newspapers mean nothing, they are not news at all, just tools of propaganda. Who owns them and what do the people who own them own, stocks, corporations, farms. What are the holdings of the papers or what corporations own papers.

so anyone that writes or edits for a newspaper is corrupt and only writes what the head of the coroporation says to write....would that apply to all media sources then.....

So you are saying newspapers are completely unbiased, never have a political view point, never print a story to influence a stock or a public policy. You believe they are completly neutral and if its printed its a fact and we should act accordingly?????????

 

[krotchdog]

funny how you want me to change my thinking, yet someone posts something you don't agree with and its trolling.....

Actually, he was trying to attack your post not mine, what makes it an epic fail is that you and he agree but he didn't see that.

If you are saying I was attacking yurt that is not even close to true.

I have not even attacked your posts, I just do not see how you actually understand what happened and was hoping you could look past your political bias and see implications that you have not of thought, based on what you post and what you ignore.

I hope I addressed this correctly, I got to go back and read a few of your posts, I just meant to address this paticular post earlier and did not get around to it.

Bow or respect, the Saudi King is the king of slaves, girls do not fall in love, men decide thier fate, and you define a bow as showing repect, so Obama respects the actions of a man who literally is raping girls.

 

[manu1959]

Newspapers mean nothing, they are not news at all, just tools of propaganda. Who owns them and what do the people who own them own, stocks, corporations, farms. What are the holdings of the papers or what corporations own papers.

so anyone that writes or edits for a newspaper is corrupt and only writes what the head of the coroporation says to write....would that apply to all media sources then.....

So you are saying newspapers are completely unbiased, never have a political view point, never print a story to influence a stock or a public policy. You believe they are completly neutral and if its printed its a fact and we should act accordingly?????????

So you are saying the internet is completely unbiased, never have a political view point, never print a story to influence a stock or a public policy. You believe they are completly neutral and if its printed its a fact and we should act accordingly?????????

nope....i am saying it is neither and so is the internet.....well not quite...the internet is worse....