I have avoided bashing Obama to give him a chance. I don't think many people gave Bush a chance at all and it did not serve us well. It is not my intent to bash Obama here, but I'm starting to get concerned. For full disclosure, I voted for Obama so I'm somewhat invested.
I realize he is just starting out. I know that. I'm trying not to phrase this as a b!tch fest, but I'm getting concerned.
1) First, I have to call his judgment into question as many (most?) or his top level advisers turned out to have fatal flaws. Most notably an inability or unwillingness to comply with Federal Tax laws. Still others that seemed qualified for the position or bridged an ideological divide passed up the invite or quit. I'm pleasantly surprised by the performance of Clinton as Secretary of State, but otherwise things are not running smoothly. A president delegates 90% of his duties so I'm concerned.
Some posts STILL aren't filled. The UK complained that they can not get calls returned from several departments (including treasury!). Really?
2) Most notable is the economic policy seems to have actually gotten worse. Few would argue that Bush has a great plan to deal with it and largely left an open to door to allow Obama to institute his plans. The policy STILL isn't clear. All we are clear on is that up to the national GDP will be allocated to the problem. We're not sure where the money will go, to what industries, for what purpose, on what terms, or . . . well anything. We don't know who has the money currently or on what terms. Just throwing money out the door.
He knew he was inheriting a serious economic problem. As the campaign went on the economy gained in prominence. That he would enter office without a real plan seems very odd: banks were failing, the auto industry bailout was already a question, jobs were being lost. Were none of his advisers coming up with ideas to deal with these things?
In the interest of fairness, he has been an advocate against protectionism and in favor of free trade. So on a basic level I think he is aiming for the right tactic. Just question the effects and transparency involved.
If it is a matter of taking time to get it right, I'm fine with it. But then it must be right. There are many different versions of what is right and I'm not too picky (I'll hate them all in some way): BUT, they all MUST involved transparency.
Dolling out trillions of dollars is ripe for unprecedented corruption and waste.
3) Another major tenant of Obamaism is to increase the standing of the USA on a global stage. I agree in large part with this goal. If the US has a reputation as a liar and a cheat or just not giving a damn about what others have to say - it is harder for us to have our voice heard or believed. Rabid anti Americanism is a hard foreign policy to overcome AND hinders US economics (trade, foreign investment, tourism). I want America to be respected AND liked.
BUT WHY HASN'T ANYONE TAUGHT BASIC DECORUM TO THIS ADMINISTRATION?
- Don't buy the Prime Minster a DVD set (he can't play)
- Don't give gifts from the gift shop
- Ipods should not be given to heads of state
- DON'T BOW TO FOREIGN KINGS.
- Britain and England are different things
I'll let the arm around the queen slide. I'd rather insult a foreign monarch with a friendly American colloquium than bow to one. Seriously, doesn't the White House have people that take care of stuff like that?
4) Stop pretending your former Senate seat wasn't being sold. You are the head of State, your Senate seat was being freaking sold. Just a hint of outrage on this subject would be fantastic. I understand innocent until proven guilty, qualify it all you want with "if proven guilty" but this man tainted your election and the United States government.
5) I like good oration. Not only does it provide a clear message but it engages the audience. That was a huge Obama draw - and it's largely gone.
Reliance on teleprompters was good during the campaign when you had plenty of time to get each speech ready and can be useful aids now. But reading every speech is tiresome and ineffective. You cannot pause for random applause, you must pause when breaks are written it.
Not a huge deal, but it isn't helping. The image of the US President can help sell the message. We all know Bush didn't do us any favors in that regard and I really thought Obama would deliver home run after home run. I've been disappointed.
6) Yay, you're a rock star. If was well received by everyone across Europe. Polite receptions and the ability to speak in the most prominent rolls. But we got none of the things we asked for:
- No increased international stimulus
- No sanctions against N Korea
- No troops for Afghanistan
- No action against Irans nuclear program
Either we didn't get anything that we wanted, or the administration is not selling the "victories" well.
7) Mexican Drug War - has the USA done anything in response to this escalation the last few months?
THE GOOD:
8) Dedication to free trade / antiprotectionist
9) Transferring responsibility in Iraq more to Iraqis
10) Ignoring gay marriage (why, in the hell, does the Federal Government care about two guys getting married?)
11) Deescalating the war on marijuana. What a waste of resources that is.
12) More press access/ public addresses
- - -
Had to vent. Read a detailed article on bowing to the King of Saud and was very disappointed. I'm not anti-Obama and certainly don't want him to fail and (again) I realize we are early on. But concerns are already starting to rise.
1) That was pretty stupid. But I wonder how many people you can nominate that somebody couldn't dig something up on. At the very least they could have found somebody that did something that didn't involve taxes. However, at least one of those I could definitely see if you did your own taxes missing.
2) Unfortunately Bush and Congress started us down this path with the bailouts. He can request this and that but it is up to Congress to get it done and keep transparency on some of this.
3) The White House said that the Queen requested the IPOD. This is the Guido effect of pointless complaining.
I don't know why he would bow to somebody. I know there is a picture out of Bush "bowing" but I think it was to receive a medal.
6) I wouldn't bet on everybody forgiving us for tanking the world economy and the last 8 years in 4 months. I do however think that given another year or so we will get more help.
I never trusted him.
He named his daughters "Sasha" (a russian name) and "Malia" (Hawaiian for peaceful)
He is a commie peacenik. Nuff said.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=baracknophobia-obey
There will be no doubt that he will continue to be effective.....
Why do you hate America?
Get your commemorative dinner plate!
10 weeks?....this stress is not good for you.
I think he just dropped a contact lens.
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090401/capt.773ffd671ed94927aa537d663380c4cd.britain_g20_palace_lon305.jpg?x=400&y=317&q=85&sig=K8Qbm54DpacFU5XO_dr3tw--)
I guess there's a first for everything.
No Gas, he was LEANING (not bowing) to shake the hand of a shorter person. ::)
Quote from: guido911 on April 09, 2009, 04:12:17 PM
No Gas, he was LEANING (not bowing) to shake the hand of a shorter person. ::)
Is that short person in the king's pocket?
I don't think it was an act of prostration, I think he wanted the king to kiss his forehead, you know for good luck or something.
Perhaps he was admiring a really nice pare of Brunos Maglis?
"Um, fabulous shoes your uh. . . majesty"
It was cute.
The President of the United States does receive instruction on how to conduct himself as the dominant figure in any public setting.
This bow, then, had to have been intentional. It was completely out of the ordinary for a U.S. President to behave.
My theory is that we used this trip for Obama to "suck up" to the Saudis and the Turks because Israel is about to lay the smack down on Iran.
I might be wrong, but I hope that is what this was all about. We don't want to start a war in the middle-east, but something is likely to happen soon with Iran. So Biden says to Israel, "an attack would be ill-advised," and Obama bows to the Saudis and says, "We are not at war with Islam."
Then Israel hits Iran's nuclear facility shortly after passover next week, and we throw our hands up in the air and say, "We're sorry Iran, we had no idea they were going to do this." ::)
Quote from: Hawkins on April 09, 2009, 09:00:25 PM
The President of the United States does receive instruction on how to conduct himself as the dominant figure in any public setting.
This bow, then, had to have been intentional. It was completely out of the ordinary for a U.S. President to behave.
My theory is that we used this trip for Obama to "suck up" to the Saudis and the Turks because Israel is about to lay the smack down on Iran.
I might be wrong, but I hope that is what this was all about. We don't want to start a war in the middle-east, but something is likely to happen soon with Iran. So Biden says to Israel, "an attack would be ill-advised," and Obama bows to the Saudis and says, "We are not at war with Islam."
Then Israel hits Iran's nuclear facility shortly after passover next week, and we throw our hands up in the air and say, "We're sorry Iran, we had no idea they were going to do this." ::)
Very well put. +1 Karma
CF:
You're focusing a lot on cosmetic problems, I'd say. Our country -- and dare I say the world -- seems to have a lot of tolerance for international gaffes and/or blunders at this point. The last administration proved that pretty well. Obama's "rock star" status can paper over a lot of smallish missed cues, and as much as we might be suspicious of personal charisma as indicative of leadership ability (which, IMO, is always at the root of our hostility towards movie stars who speak out politically), his main message was successful. In so many large and small ways he made sure that the "with us or against us" diplomacy of the Bush Administration is a thing of the past, and I'd say it bore fruit (for instance: an excellent start with Russia's Medvedev, a gushing press conference with Gordon Brown -- in which the snubs of the past were completely forgotten; he's also made overtures to Iran and Syria, and has already begun significantly changing our Cuba policy).
In other words, he's getting there. Focusing on small and ultimately forgettable gaffes takes away from the larger things he'll be remembered for.
The teleprompter thing. . . sheesh, that's so last week it isn't even funny. And again, it's more distraction than substantive.
The tax issues are disturbing but seem to be endemic to both parties. I'm more concerned with how close his economic advisers are to the companies and interest groups that caused our meltdown. Geithner's connection to Goldman Sachs (along with Paulson, I might add); Summers connection to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Bill which in effect repealed Glass-Steagall; Robert Rubin and Citigroup, and Rubin's outspoken opposition to regulation of derivatives, etc. They're simply too beholden to the financial industry in my view and that hobbles policy in a big way.
Some of Obama's failures -- to me -- include his continuing support of FISA and his unwillingness to hold our security apparatus accountable for torture (another report about which the ICRC just released (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22614)). I'm a bigger stimulus kinda guy, and I think he's way undershot what the economy needs, and I also think his initial focus on bipartisanship to get it done was really a major blunder. Thankfully he learned pretty quickly that he can't count on the GOP rump for anything whatsoever and has been making his way around them when he can.
He ain't perfect by any means (he was never going to be, of course), but 11 weeks in and he's off to an impressive start.
Wevus, I realize I am over reacting. But the gaffs I mentioned are very public ones. It is the face of the administration we are able to see. IF that is messed up it calls into doubt the rest of whatever is going on.
Just concerned and venting, I'm not writing him off.
The bowing, the teleprompter, the dvds, the rock star stuff, those are just nitpicky opposition talking points. Red herrings if you will. They don't matter. Bringing them up only shows an "I don't like him so I'm going to harp on everything I can" angle.
That being said, disagreeing with policy is a legitimate issue to be brought up.
A couple of points from CF's rant:
Point one, the economic policy
Quote from: cannon_fodderWe're not sure where the money will go, to what industries, for what purpose, on what terms, or . . . well anything. We don't know who has the money currently or on what terms. Just throwing money out the door.
My problem with Obama's policy with the bailouts is that there does seem to be some purpose. No one wants to say where the money is going, under the guise of "it could crash the markets if we told you" - Convenient excuse. Anyway, what is the purpose of all the bailouts? That purpose seems to be gaining government control over business and industry by using bailout funds. Some cry about nationalization, I'm not sure full nationalization is the goal or if they would take it that far, BUT, what appears to be happening right now is that they are doling out all kinds of bailout money with strings attached. Basically, the government is buying controlling interest in companies. What makes this unfair is that if you or I wanted to buy shares in a company, we would have to use real money, money we actually have. The government has a never ending source of funds. They can borrow, or call the Fed and have more money created. That is an advantage that no one else has. So when the government gets in the business of hostile takeovers, there is no one who can stop them.
If you're going to buy controlling stakes in business, do it with capital, not with money out of thin air. But the real point should be that this is a power grab, based on the current economic crisis making the situation thus that they can get away with doing it. The government shouldn't be using its unlimited funds to buy control in companies.
Looking at overall economic policy, the bailouts, and the stimulus bill, it just seems the only solution offered is more government. I see no new freedom for productivity to flourish being discussed. If you recall that Daniel Hannan rant against Gordon Brown a week or two ago, my favorite point he made about the fallacy in most of the "economic recovery plans" of big government, is that they are increasing the unproductive (government) sector while at the same time putting more and more burden on the productive sector (business, industry). Only productivity can ultimately pull us out of recession, we can't keep finding ways to paper over a deficit in production forever. Hopefully something out of this bailout frenzy will eventually spark productivity somewhere, and there appear to be some people who have faith that this is the actual intent. Could someone please try to sell me on this idea?
Point two, free trade
You mentioned free trade. Could you elaborate on how Obama is an advocate of free trade? Are you referring to what he has said, or actual implementations of policy? That is an important distinction to make.
The first thing I thought when you made all of those references to free trade was, did I miss something? Was I asleep when he got us out of NAFTA and the WTO?
I disagree on several points.
1) Bowing to a foreign sovereign is not a nitpicky thing. "To bow" literally means "to yield to another's wish or opinion; a sign of deference." When our Head of State bows to another Head of State by implication the United States of American yields to that other nation.
I don't bow before my president, my president doesn't bow before anyone.
In this country is a small gaff. Just a gesture. But in many parts of the world such signs of deference have actual meaning.
2) A good oratory style helps SELL America. If you can not speak well, you can not get your point across as well. I thought he was excellent in the campaign and looked forward to the United States having a respected speaker give our positions. The teleprompter crutch hinders that ability.
- - -
Neither is a deal breaker by any means. But they are not meaningless matters.
As head of the executive branch of government, I judge him based on the execution of policies.
The scary thing about the bow is that the White House is denying it happened. Which it clearly did. Why couldn't they just admit The One made a mistake and didn't know the protocol? Now the far-right extremists have even more ammunition to cast suspicion on Obama's true loyalties.
Quote from: jiminy on April 10, 2009, 12:54:17 PM
The scary thing about the bow is that the White House is denying it happened. Which it clearly did. Why couldn't they just admit The One made a mistake and didn't know the protocol? Now the far-right extremists have even more ammunition to cast suspicion on Obama's true loyalties.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Even if it was a small gaff, a reaction to the moment, there is no reason to deny it.
If he had said in a strong presidential voice "I did bow to his Magisty in mutual respect, but not in prostration. That is all." This would be a non issue.
-off topic-
The root of my distrust of movie stars speaking out politically is in their nearly consummate disconnect from life as the rest of us live it.
-on topic-
I read somewhere that it's considered insulting to bow to the kind of Saudi Arabia - or maybe that was just the hand-kissing, I can't remember...
Quote from: Gaspar on April 10, 2009, 01:14:13 PM
Even if it was a small gaff, a reaction to the moment, there is no reason to deny dwell on it.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: we vs us on April 10, 2009, 01:51:05 PM
Fixed that for you.
You're right WeVS. Perhaps we should just "move on."
. . . but that is exactly the point, this should have been a non-news item, but the flat denial that it happened in front of a thousand cameras is a huge disturbance. Why?
It serves no purpose to lie about something, unless you believe that your perception alone can influence the reality of a situation.
Can't you see how spells danger? We've been down this road before.
Quote from: Gaspar on April 10, 2009, 02:06:41 PM
You're right WeVS. Perhaps we should just "move on."
. . . but that is exactly the point, this should have been a non-news item, but the flat denial that it happened in front of a thousand cameras is a huge disturbance. Why?
It serves no purpose to lie about something, unless you believe that your perception alone can influence the reality of a situation.
Can't you see how spells danger? We've been down this road before.
But see, it doesn't really spell danger. It really IS a non news item. We're keeping it alive by obsessing over it.
The flat denial was the right thing to do, because doing anything else would've dignified the accusation. And it just doesn't deserve to be dignified.
It was a mistake at best. What else is there to say about it?
Quote from: we vs us on April 10, 2009, 02:32:17 PM
But see, it doesn't really spell danger. It really IS a non news item. We're keeping it alive by obsessing over it.
The flat denial was the right thing to do, because doing anything else would've dignified the accusation. And it just doesn't deserve to be dignified.
It was a mistake at best. What else is there to say about it?
I can understand that interpretation. I don't agree with it, but over the years we have become accustom to to this type of denial. I don't think it's right. I didn't agree with it when Bill did it, or when Hillary did it, or when president Bush did it, and I don't agree with it now. Just because we've become accustom to it, doesn't make it any better.
Little denials have a way of adding up over time. "Politician" has become a bad word for exactly this reason. We reduce our leaders to salesmen, and they should be so much more.
We all know he made a mistake, but rather than knowing he made a simple mistake in protocol, we now focus his denial. How is that better?
Quote from: Gaspar on April 10, 2009, 02:52:49 PM
I can understand that interpretation. I don't agree with it, but over the years we have become accustom to to this type of denial. I don't think it's right. I didn't agree with it when Bill did it, or when Hillary did it, or when president Bush did it, and I don't agree with it now. Just because we've become accustom to it, doesn't make it any better.
Little denials have a way of adding up over time. "Politician" has become a bad word for exactly this reason. We reduce our leaders to salesmen, and they should be so much more.
We all know he made a mistake, but rather than knowing he made a simple mistake in protocol, we now focus his denial. How is that better?
That's my point. Focusing on this at all is the mistake. What are we gaining by demanding that our President cop to bowing before a foreign dignitary? What possible good could it do? If he bowed and it was a mistake, rest assured both he and the prince understand that it was a flub. Rest assured other foreign dignitaries understand it, too. Better we just let it go, because I guarantee you the Saudi delegation has.
The only reason it's even a meme is that it's being pushed by right wing media to be there. Like someone said upthread, it supports the basic "Obama's a sleeper Muslim agent," idea. If we get a whiff of incompetence or bumbling, then so much the better because that supports the "Obama's too green to govern" idea.
I'm content in that at least he didn't give Angela Merkle a massage. Or, you know, vomit in the lap of the Japanese prime minister.
Quote from: we vs us on April 10, 2009, 01:51:05 PM
Fixed that for you.
Well, where we you when Dan Quayle made the infamous "potatoe" gaffe or Palin's statement that Alaskans can see Russia? As for dwelling on this bow issue, "President Pantywaist" (man that was funny) lying about the bow is simply another example of another lie in a pattern of lies he has told as I have chronicled. This lie, however, was just stupid.
Re: vacancies in the administration
Came across an interesting Huffpost article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/11/obama-still-has-hundreds-_n_185842.html) today about this . . . and yes I understand it's Huffpost, but it's been sourced by AP writers, so there's at least some nugget of fact therein.
QuoteWASHINGTON — President Barack Obama doesn't have time for a victory lap now that his Cabinet is finally largely in place.
One level down, he faces gaping holes in the ranks he needs to fill if there is to be any hope of turning his ambitious agenda into action on health care, the environment and much more.
After a spurt of recent activity that followed a problem-plagued start, Obama is outpacing George W. Bush and Bill Clinton on appointments. But Obama, like his two immediate predecessors, is bogged down in a system that has grown increasingly cumbersome over the years. And he's added tougher-than-ever background checks and ethics rules.
Further down the article is this:
QuoteAll told, Obama has about 500 appointments to make that are subject to Senate confirmation, and about 3,000 positions to fill overall, Light estimates.
By the White House's own count, Obama is outpacing his three predecessors at getting top-level appointees confirmed. But the numbers still are paltry, given all the vacancies to be filled. As of March 31, by an internal White House tally, Obama had 38 top-level officials confirmed, compared with 27 for George W. Bush, 37 for Clinton, and 27 for George H.W. Bush.
If true, at least that puts into perspective the sense of perceived staffing gaps. Not that things couldn't move faster or more efficiently -- they always can -- but at least he's generally ahead of the game as it's been played in the past.
At least one scholar they interviewed thought Obama's ethics requirements are too tight:
QuoteObama added to the hurdles by imposing tougher ethics rules and by increasing scrutiny of nominees' taxes after revelations that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had failed to pay $34,000 in payroll taxes and that former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, Obama's first pick for health secretary, owed $140,000 in back income taxes and interest.
Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, said Obama was setting "Mother Teresa standards in a city with very few saints."
West called the number of appointees in place "dangerously low given the enormity of the challenges we face. Obama is holding his people to such a high standard it is wounding his administration."
Wow, and despite those standards, he still nominated Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, Solis, Ron Kirk, and Killefer? Makes one wonder how awful the other applicants were. And a quote in the article from the Brookings Institute? I caught hell for citing to Newsbusters once.
Just once? ;D I can't wait to start citing Newsbusters because IMHO it's only a matter of time before Hal "Late Great Planet Earth" Lindsey starts pushing Obama as the Anti-Christ...
Edit: sorry, Hal's on WorldNetDaily.... get 'em confused sometimes....
Quote from: USRufnex on April 12, 2009, 11:37:51 AM
Just once? ;D I can't wait to start citing Newsbusters because IMHO it's only a matter of time before Hal "Late Great Planet Earth" Lindsey starts pushing Obama as the Anti-Christ...
Edit: sorry, Hal's on WorldNetDaily.... get 'em confused sometimes....
Way to ingore the primary point of my response. Show some courage, will ya?
Quote from: we vs us on April 10, 2009, 02:32:17 PM
But see, it doesn't really spell danger. It really IS a non news item. We're keeping it alive by obsessing over it.
The flat denial was the right thing to do, because doing anything else would've dignified the accusation. And it just doesn't deserve to be dignified.
It was a mistake at best. What else is there to say about it?
Bill Clinton much?
In the case of Bill Clinton I agree - if he admitted to getting a BJ in the oval office and leaving stains all over her dress, then it was a non-issue. If the President can't be sexually pleasured in his office, who can? When he lied about it to the American people and went on to obstruct justice, it became an actual issue to me.
In this instance, I still believe admitted deference to a foreign King is a serious gaff. Yes, something that could easily be passed off by saying "I was too concerned with being polite and did not realize the significance of the act." But that hasn't happened.
What if Bush would have bowed to the Saudi King? HOLY CRAP. Can you imagine? "Well, at least he made it official. The USA is a subject of the crown of Saudi Arabia." On and on and on. And Bush probably would have said he didn't really bow, or just ignore the comment all together.
If Obama wanted to ignore the "accusation" (accusation generally means you are being accused, there is video showing this happening so the word doesn't exactly apply) might have been a more appropriate avenue. A breach of protocol, not a matter of national sovereignty or any big deal. But for some idiot to lie about it just makes it worse, not any better.
Not a deal breaker and I'm not calling for heads over it, but PLEASE don't feed the fire Obama. I don't want another US vs. THEM administration. Lets actually get stuff done.
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2009, 03:35:13 PM
Way to ingore the primary point of my response. Show some courage, will ya?
It is a shame that Richardson and Daschle aren't in Obama's cabinet... they should have been.
There. All better? ::)
The UN has finally sent their strongly worded letter to the North Korean Gargoyle. In the letter they condemned the launch and demanded that he not do it again.
Good. That's taken care of. I guess we can move on.
That love fest didn't last long. President Sarkozy is talking trash of President Obama now.
Apparently he is annoyed by the rock star persona and what he sees as the naivety and the herd mentality of the media, among other things.
Jealous little man.
Ah the French. What can you do. They've been casting themselves as the Eurostyle alternative to American hegemony for decades.
Of course, they're still our allies. Prickly though they may be.
Quote from: we vs us on April 15, 2009, 03:22:32 PM
Ah the French. What can you do. They've been casting themselves as the Eurostyle alternative to American hegemony for decades.
Of course, they're still our allies. Prickly though they may be.
Of course, they're still our allies.
Prickly Pricks though they may be.
FIFY
Quote from: guido911 on April 15, 2009, 03:40:11 PM
Of course, they're still our allies. Prickly Pricks though they may be.
FIFY
As long as you don't fix the allies part, I'm fine with it. Because really, surrender monkeys or not, they are.
The luster is still on, apparently to one person Obama really is the messiah.
(http://www.wnd.com/images/090425obamathetruth.jpg)
Just yesterday at mass the priest was talking about how Jesus was all about supporting abortion rights, coveting the wealth of others, hanging around tax cheats, and oh, lying.
Another day, another ethics waiver for an Obama appointee:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/12/treasury-nominee-can-keep-corporate-buyout/
He gets to keep his deferred pay from his prior employer which stands to profit from the work he will do for the government. Oh, and that whole Dick Cheney taking deferred payments from KBR (evil Haliburton)...crickets.
I think he is learning that you can't find experienced people willing to work at the highest levels of government who qualify as squeaky clean. Sad truth I suppose.
Per the Haliburton thing, did Obama ever talk about that or just 'people' in general? I agree there is a double standard on many levels (Bush gaffs made Leno nightly), but it is not necessarily a slight on Obama.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on May 12, 2009, 01:31:02 PM
Per the Haliburton thing, did Obama ever talk about that or just 'people' in general?
I don't know, I was just slapping those tinfoil hat wearers/hypocrites around a bit. Incidentally, it looks as if Murtha has picked up on those evil "no bid" contracts that was all the outrage during the Boosh administration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101695.html
Strange we are not hearing about those no-bidders from the lefty crowd here.
Quote from: guido911 on May 12, 2009, 01:40:04 PM
I don't know, I was just slapping those tinfoil hat wearers/hypocrites around a bit. Incidentally, it looks as if Murtha has picked up on those evil "no bid" contracts that was all the outrage during the Boosh administration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101695.html
Strange we are not hearing about those no-bidders from the lefty crowd here.
Quote from: guido911 on May 12, 2009, 01:40:04 PM
I don't know, I was just slapping those tinfoil hat wearers/hypocrites around a bit. Incidentally, it looks as if Murtha has picked up on those evil "no bid" contracts that was all the outrage during the Boosh administration:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101695.html
Strange we are not hearing about those no-bidders from the lefty crowd here.
Let me be the first to make you feel just a squidge better about us tinfoil hat hypocrites: it was wrong when Bush/Cheney did it, it's wrong when Murtha does it.
There, all better.
Quote from: we vs us on May 12, 2009, 02:14:09 PM
Let me be the first to make you feel just a squidge better about us tinfoil hat hypocrites: it was wrong when Bush/Cheney did it, it's wrong when Murtha does it.
There, all better.
It's wrong? Whoa, dial down that outrage. You are beginning to sound like those folks that were all over Cheney for 8 years.
Quote from: we vs us on May 12, 2009, 02:14:09 PM
Let me be the first to make you feel just a squidge better about us tinfoil hat hypocrites: it was wrong when Bush/Cheney did it, it's wrong when Murtha does it.
There, all better.
An old favorite
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/132443565_d3629120c6.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on May 12, 2009, 02:30:39 PM
It's wrong? Whoa, dial down that outrage. You are beginning to sound like those folks that were all over Cheney for 8 years.
You & fox news have far surpassed the left's criticism of Bush.
If you don't believe me, find me a new article about Bush's choice of mustard.
Quote from: Trogdor on May 12, 2009, 04:01:24 PM
You & fox news have far surpassed the left's criticism of Bush.
If you don't believe me, find me a new article about Bush's choice of mustard.
Boy ain't that the truth. The Obama Derangement Syndrome (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=obama+derangement+syndrome) is running full tilt, isn't it?
Don't really know how to take this "story", other than its pretty damn funny--both the "message" Harrison is sending or how the reporters reacted at his apparent audacity in refusing to meet the prez:
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/video?id=4173857
More Obama Derangement Syndrome on display by this plainly racist hack.
Quote from: guido911 on May 19, 2009, 01:47:31 PM
Don't really know how to take this "story", other than its pretty damn funny--both the "message" Harrison is sending or how the reporters reacted at his apparent audacity in refusing to meet the prez:
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/video?id=4173857
More Obama Derangement Syndrome on display by this plainly racist hack.
Eh, he's a Freeper, just like you.
Quote from: jiminy on April 10, 2009, 12:54:17 PM
The scary thing about the bow is that the White House is denying it happened. Which it clearly did. Why couldn't they just admit The One made a mistake and didn't know the protocol? Now the far-right extremists have even more ammunition to cast suspicion on Obama's true loyalties.
Will the White House be denying this:
Quote from: guido911 on November 15, 2009, 12:24:07 PM
Will the White House be denying this:
At 7:30 today FOTD saw this in TulsaWorld and knew Guido would accuse POTUS OBAMA of bowing to a foreign power. Well, what do you expect from someone who'd fist Guido?
Guido, do you respect the traditions of others?
Quote from: FOTD on November 15, 2009, 01:54:32 PM
At 7:30 today FOTD saw this in TulsaWorld and knew Guido would accuse POTUS OBAMA of bowing to a foreign power. Well, what do you expect from someone who'd fist Guido?
Guido, do you respect the traditions of others?
What tradition is that, American presidents bowing to foreign nobility? Not familiar with that one. Oh, and I guess the more than thirty other foreign leaders in the video that did not nearly double over as did Obama (and as he did to the Saudi monarch) are disrespecting tradition.
Here is an article from that horrifically right wing newspaper, the New York Times, targeting Bill Clinton for simply nearly bowing to this emperor:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/weekinreview/the-world-the-president-s-inclination-no-it-wasn-t-a-bow-bow.html
Here's more of that protocol:
(http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama_chavez_handshake.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on November 15, 2009, 02:24:15 PM
What tradition is that, American presidents bowing to foreign nobility? Not familiar with that one. Oh, and I guess the more than thirty other foreign leaders in the video that did not nearly double over as did Obama (and as he did to the Saudi monarch) are disrespecting tradition.
Here is an article from that horrifically right wing newspaper, the New York Times, targeting Bill Clinton for simply nearly bowing to this emperor:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/weekinreview/the-world-the-president-s-inclination-no-it-wasn-t-a-bow-bow.html
Here's more of that protocol:
(http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/obama_chavez_handshake.jpg)
Everybody bows in Japan. President Obama as most foreigners who are unfamilier with Japanese customs bowed a bit too deeply. His protocol staff should have instructed him better.
President Pantywaist to Groveler-in-Chief. Those crazy UK papers are at it again:
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/11/british-paper-labels-obama-groveler-in.html
On the up side, Obama is talking tough with Iran now.
Nerdoe,
That handshake is cool. Something about my enemies enemy is my friend.
Echoing a right-wing blog, Doocy repeatedly claimed Obama's bow was unprecedented
"In reporting on the manner in which President Obama greeted Japanese Emperor Akihito, Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy repeatedly claimed that "dating back to the very founding of this Republic, American leaders do not bow to leaders of other countries." In fact, Obama's greeting was far from unprecedented, as several past Presidents have bowed while greeting foreign leaders. Additionally, in reporting on Obama's bow, Fox & Friends repeatedly cited right-wing blog Hot Air in their reports on Obama's greeting."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911160014
More proof the resident wing nut is full of Hot Air.
Quote from: FOTD on November 16, 2009, 05:58:25 PM
Nerdoe,
That handshake is cool. Something about my enemies enemy is my friend.
Echoing a right-wing blog, Doocy repeatedly claimed Obama's bow was unprecedented
"In reporting on the manner in which President Obama greeted Japanese Emperor Akihito, Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy repeatedly claimed that "dating back to the very founding of this Republic, American leaders do not bow to leaders of other countries." In fact, Obama's greeting was far from unprecedented, as several past Presidents have bowed while greeting foreign leaders. Additionally, in reporting on Obama's bow, Fox & Friends repeatedly cited right-wing blog Hot Air in their reports on Obama's greeting."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200911160014
More proof the resident wing nut is full of Hot Air.
From your source, I assume you are comfortable with linking Obama to Nixon (although Nixon's bow was reciprocated and did not look like a jock sniff). Also, if you bother READING the entire blog report from which the unbiased Media Matters looked to (I know, I am assuming you can read), ABC's Jake Tapper noted in his blog:
"Obama's handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush's back-rub of Merkel."
Remember how GWB was excoriated for that inappropriateness? Nope. You are such a fool, you make it too easy.
Gwee...how does Glenn Becks a$$ taste when you are licking it?
Is this really your best effort? Come on...raise your bar.
Again Guido, do you respect the traditions of others?
Obama now bowing to mayors:
(http://www.weaselzippers.net/.a/6a00e008c6b4e588340128773a7c9d970c-pi)
You obviously have never shown respect for someone else...
Who is this mayor? There just could be a good reason for his display of cordiality.
Maybe he knows her on a personal level.
Still harping over stupid bullsh** instead of policy I see.
Let's bow to China:
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100412/i/r1745302319.jpg?x=400&y=309&q=85&sig=iGo2_63jwiyh08b8qknu4Q--)
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2010, 07:36:12 PM
Let's bow to China:
They shake hands, we bow. It's called being polite to people of other cultures.
Gwee,
Your posts are getting too dorky.
At least mine you have to think about.
Quote from: nathanm on April 12, 2010, 07:43:54 PM
They shake hands, we bow. It's called being polite to people of other cultures.
Then where is the responsive bow from all those Obama has bowed to?
It's called being submissive. Thank goodness our President doesn't roll on to his back and show his, uh, belly like my dog does.
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2010, 07:36:12 PM
Let's bow to China:
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100412/i/r1745302319.jpg?x=400&y=309&q=85&sig=iGo2_63jwiyh08b8qknu4Q--)
I guess if all it took was a bow and now China is going to impose economic sanctions on Iran. It was worth it. All he had to do is not be a dick.
Quote from: guido911 on April 12, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
Then where is the responsive bow from all those Obama has bowed to?
The response is their shaking his hand, as is common in our culture.