I have some comments on this but before I say anything I would like to hear both storey/ZEB’s input.[/quote]
Thanks for posting the photo’s. Let’s take them one by one:
First GW is bowing to the Pope who (according to the Catholic Church) represents God on earth. He is bowing to the church at the very least, not a country.
The second Bush photo looks like that Saudi King is going to bestow some sort of medal around his neck - I could be wrong but that’s what it looks like. And if so Bush is tipping his head forward to receive it.
In the third photo Dwight Eisenhower is actually returning a bow by French President De Gaulle. Of course the photo doesn’t show De Gaulle bowing first, but he did.
Finally, if you notice in the final photo Nixon is “eye to eye” with the Japanese Emperor. As they both tip their heads forward. Not a big deal as they are both doing it and remaining in eye contact. Those who have studied the martial arts know what I mean here.
One final thought take a close look at each photo. There is quite a bit of difference in tipping your head and bowing at the neck more or less than what Obama does. It’s like he’s lost his keys and tries to get as close to the sidewalk as he can to find them.
I also think Obama has over done the bow unlike the other former Presidents in question. And he’s bowed to the wrong people. So too many and to the wrong people and far more subservient. One last thing - When Obama did his bowing tour he was also apologizing to the world for America calling us “arrogant and dismissive”. I think if you ad it up in its entirety Obama is certainly sending the wrong message. [/quote]
Yup, pretty much agree.
Wait the housing crash was caused by liberals in the government? In the Bush era? Pardon me if I’m wrong but don’t you get your loans and mortgages from a bank there, not the government? How exactly is it the government’s fault? that’s a genuine, not rhetorical quesetion[/quote]
You are wrong and I do not pardon you because you’ve been cautioned to grow and learn BEFORE you post.
There were millions of loans purchased by government backed fannie and freddie mae. These institutions were chartered by the US government back in the 60’s. The purpose of these institutions are to expand the secondary mortgage market by increasing the number of lenders. Through the years these institutions have become quite liberal in giving loans to those people who are not worthy. President Bush tried to overhaul fannie and freddie but it was blocked by democrats. Liberals who wanted to see (sniff, sniff) everyone own a home. bleeding heart idiots.
Under Bill Clinton there was a goal set to achieve an all-time high home ownership rate by the year 2000. Therefore, many important standards were dropped and if someone showed up looked eager and had a pulse they could get a loan for a house. Since Fannie and Freddie purchased their loans from other banks (on the secondary market) banks always knew they had a ready sucker to pawn off questionable loans to.
There you have it junior - I know it’s hard to believe that as a 19 year old living in Scotland that you don’t know everything about how the US government works but there’s plenty more where this came from.
Crap, I managed to avoid the PWI forum but got sucked into it. I was skimming an article on WSJ online that said that people don’t want to be governed from the left, right, or center - they want to be governed LESS. I tend to agree. Like it or not, the majority of people tend to be fairly moderate but lean somewhat to the right on fiscal matters. I am a registered independent, and describe myself as fiscally conservative but socially libertarian. I actually went ahead and voted for some libertarian candidates just on principle, knowing full well that I threw away my vote and probably made it more likely for a Democrat to win. The Republicans need to wake up to people like myself. While I may agree with the Rs on several economic matters, I am beyond tired of the Bible-thumping nonsense.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
the Bible-thumping nonsense.[/quote]
Really? Where are the R’s trying to thump you with the bible? I just don’t see this. Because you are an R, does not mean religious automatically. There are just as many religious Dems as R’s, it’s just that Dems decided to demonize religion as it applies to the right and by default capturing voters who are anti religion. Propaganda.
[quote]Raided wrote:
Obama’s biggest mistake was not to tear the Republicans a new one when he came into power.
He should have pointed out that their policies were never any good, that they presided over the whole debacle and that the economy had been running of the fumes of credit and financial fucking around for too long. That Republicans had sold the country to China and India. With that he could have gathered some steam and put his policies in place.
He should have put a bigger stimulus package together and simultaneously slapped a tariff on China until they agreed to let their currency appreciate. He should also have put the bankers to rights by now.
The stimulus package should have been much bigger. I don’t think it was all about appeasing Republicans and uneasy voters either as austerity policies have been in vogue recently in many countries, but being fashionable doesn’t mean it was right. The current conditions with interest rates at near enough zero and banks just hoarding cash in central bank reserves prevents fiscal stimulus from driving up interest rates. So the argument about stimulus crowding out private investment doesn’t hold water. Stimulus would not do anything to damage USA’s credit worthiness either, that argument is just a joke.
The reason why stimulus is considered a bad policy by some has nothing to do with economics. It has everything to do with ideology, poor reasoning (extending logic you’d use in a business or a household to the level of the entire economy) and moral judgements.
Anyway it’s all academic now as he looks like a lame duck and Republican ideology isn’t going to fix the mess. So tell me if if the government is refusing to spend, businesses wont spend, households cant spend and foreign countries refuse to buy American who is going to be the one to get the economy going?[/quote]
As much as we might have wanted him to give the GOP the ass-kicking it deserved, there would have been a HUGE backlash. There is no way Obama could have done an FDR and shoved shit through Congress and flipped the GOP the finger. Then it would have been “Oh no! We have an angry black man as POTUS! See what happens when blacks are in control? He’s racist! He’s just out to punish whites!” and shit like that. Unfortunately, with the way the GOP thinks, I think he’s damned if does something and damned if he doesn’t. If Obama declares the sky is blue the GOP would argue it’s not, just because Obama said it is. The GOP is going to try and un-do everything that’s been done the past two years and the Dems are are going to have to spend time fighting back and nothing’s going to get done.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
I was going to respond to ZEB quote-by-quote, but instead just read siouxperman’s post, because that is exactly how I feel (on most issues mentioned).
But seriously, bowing to leaders? “Really?” indeed. Because this is such a huge issue and America is now everyone’s bitch because of it. Please. Let’s focus on the big issues, please, not every little fact you can look up on the internet or remember.[/quote]
If you do not see how demonstrating weakness and subservience is harmful then you have much to learn about life. [/quote]
You seriously think 10 years from now, when people are rating President Obama’s 4 (or 8) years, they will bring up him bowing?
Please dude, get real. And I brought up issues affecting US, the American people. How the fuck did him bowing have any effect on us? ZERO, and don’t give me that “well it did indirectly blah blah blah” BS.[/quote]
If you don’t understand simple things like this there is no point in discussing it with you.[/quote]
No they don’t understand simple things like this - There is not even a partial understanding or even a faint appreciation for the subtleties of world diplomacy. We may just as well talk to a wall.
[/quote]
Neither one of you has commented on the fact that Nixon also bowed, so did Bush Sr. so I’m afraid YOU don’t get it, it is called hypocrisy [/quote]
Do you have pics? I have never heard of there instances other than this thread.
Sorry I should have clarified that Obama had a much deeper bow than the other two which you have seen the pics of (youtube won’t show the video of Nixon and Mao any more). Bush and Nixon are easily dismissed as “minor bows” “really more of a nod” “no where near as deep or obvious as Obama’s” at the end of the day they still did it somewhat and here is the real point ----------- a bow is still more honorable than holding hands and kissing another guy in terms of what our president does…period.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Sorry I should have clarified that Obama had a much deeper bow than the other two which you have seen the pics of (youtube won’t show the video of Nixon and Mao any more). Bush and Nixon are easily dismissed as “minor bows” “really more of a nod” “no where near as deep or obvious as Obama’s” at the end of the day they still did it somewhat and here is the real point ----------- a bow is still more honorable than holding hands and kissing another guy in terms of what our president does…period.[/quote]
Not really little did you know that the whole Bush make out scene with the Saudi King was to gain gay votes in 04’. And it worked!
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Sorry I should have clarified that Obama had a much deeper bow than the other two which you have seen the pics of (youtube won’t show the video of Nixon and Mao any more). Bush and Nixon are easily dismissed as “minor bows” “really more of a nod” “no where near as deep or obvious as Obama’s” at the end of the day they still did it somewhat and here is the real point ----------- a bow is still more honorable than holding hands and kissing another guy in terms of what our president does…period.[/quote]
Not really little did you know that the whole Bush make out scene with the Saudi King was to gain gay votes in 04’. And it worked! [/quote]
Gay voters went 28% R’s this term. Vs about 12 last election.
Anyone heard about his $200 million a day trip to India? If not what rock have you been under? Is this revenge for taking the House from him last week? Eh, maybe. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I was a little irritated when he took over sections of Spain for a few days just so they could go on vacation again, but at least most of what was spent was his money. All $2 billion of this trip is OUR money.
I love how he enters India like a conquering king, warships and all.
[quote]Hodge_Podge18 wrote:
Anyone heard about his $200 million a day trip to India? If not what rock have you been under? Is this revenge for taking the House from him last week? Eh, maybe. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I was a little irritated when he took over sections of Spain for a few days just so they could go on vacation again, but at least most of what was spent was his money. All $2 billion of this trip is OUR money.
I love how he enters India like a conquering king, warships and all.
So that’s where my money went recently…[/quote]
This has been discussed.
PLEASE tell me that this is a joke, and that you didn’t actually believe that 200 million/day and 1/4 of the U.S. Navy was utilized on the President’s trip to Asia…
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
First of all if you think any of this is good, I feel sorry for you.
Second, Asking us conservatives to think in a liberal mindset is like asking a liberal to get a job.
True we did not take over banks, but even you point out that we took over GM. In spirit of this thread I will point out some good he has done
Killed one of the pirates that took an American hostage.
[quote]Hodge_Podge18 wrote:
Anyone heard about his $200 million a day trip to India? If not what rock have you been under? Is this revenge for taking the House from him last week? Eh, maybe. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I was a little irritated when he took over sections of Spain for a few days just so they could go on vacation again, but at least most of what was spent was his money. All $2 billion of this trip is OUR money.
I love how he enters India like a conquering king, warships and all.
So that’s where my money went recently…[/quote]
This has been discussed.
PLEASE tell me that this is a joke, and that you didn’t actually believe that 200 million/day and 1/4 of the U.S. Navy was utilized on the President’s trip to Asia…
[quote]Hodge_Podge18 wrote:
Anyone heard about his $200 million a day trip to India? If not what rock have you been under? Is this revenge for taking the House from him last week? Eh, maybe. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I was a little irritated when he took over sections of Spain for a few days just so they could go on vacation again, but at least most of what was spent was his money. All $2 billion of this trip is OUR money.
I love how he enters India like a conquering king, warships and all.
So that’s where my money went recently…[/quote]
This has been discussed.
PLEASE tell me that this is a joke, and that you didn’t actually believe that 200 million/day and 1/4 of the U.S. Navy was utilized on the President’s trip to Asia…
Mufasa[/quote]
It was only 1/10 of the Navy. ;)[/quote]
Again…I predict 10 mil at least a day for a trip where he had his ass handed to him and he is the little man in town. I’m not proud of that.
[quote]Hodge_Podge18 wrote:
Anyone heard about his $200 million a day trip to India? If not what rock have you been under? Is this revenge for taking the House from him last week? Eh, maybe. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. I was a little irritated when he took over sections of Spain for a few days just so they could go on vacation again, but at least most of what was spent was his money. All $2 billion of this trip is OUR money.
I love how he enters India like a conquering king, warships and all.
So that’s where my money went recently…[/quote]
This has been discussed.
PLEASE tell me that this is a joke, and that you didn’t actually believe that 200 million/day and 1/4 of the U.S. Navy was utilized on the President’s trip to Asia…
Mufasa[/quote]
It was only 1/10 of the Navy. ;)[/quote]
Again…I predict 10 mil at least a day for a trip where he had his ass handed to him and he is the little man in town. I’m not proud of that.
[/quote]
Okay, $10M is not anywhere close to $200M a day! $10M sounds actually, kind of reasonable, considering you have 2 Air Force Ones (the real and the dupe), press pool, hotels, transpo (including the C-130 the official limo travels in), secret service, fuel, food, salaries, etc. I would say probably more like $6M.
