I saw on one news report when Obama met the Queen of England, he did NOT bow. (Good)

I heard that when he met the Saudi leader, he DID bow. (Bad)

What do you think made the difference?

Oh, it musta been the oil.

(You need to watch more than one news report. Was it on Fox by any chance?)

It was O acknowledging his Muslim faith before a real King.

Presidents of the US are not supposed to bow to anyone, let alone a king of another country.

Bowing in fact is a breach of protocol. American Presidents don't bow before kings. See Miss Manners...
Miss Manners' guide for the turn-of ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ju1XvqoMookC&pg=PA697&lpg=PA697&dq=protocol+bowing+Americans+meeting+foreign+monar ch&source=bl&ots=5GygELF-FT&sig=51ybqyGmwHAzO8pil6S6ws0-ikI&hl=en&ei=G9LUSbSmJNbfnQe10eHzDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2)
This is from the web site of the British Monarchy
Greeting the Queen (http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/GreetingtheQueen/Overview.aspx)




"The Queen meets thousands of people each year in the UK and overseas. Before meeting Her Majesty, many people ask how they should behave. The simple answer is that there are no obligatory codes of behaviour - just courtesy.

However, many people wish to observe the traditional forms of greeting.

For men this is a neck bow (from the head only) whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way.

On presentation to The Queen, the correct formal address is 'Your Majesty' and subsequently 'Ma'am'. "


So Obama was showing the optional deference to the Queen . Even that I believe is excessive for the President because it is recognition of the monarch's dominion over the subjects .

Considering the almost causal air they presented to the Queen of England ,I just have to ask......has anyone ever seen the President show such deference before to anyone else (maybe to William Ayers) ?
A bow, especially a deep bow like that given Abdullah, is representative of submission.

I still have to laugh at Michele hugging instead of curtsying the Queen. They say she ain't been touched in over 30 years so who knows what impact it had on her good or bad.

They say she ain't been touched in over 30 years so who knows what impact it had on her good or bad.

Not true. One of our former Prime Ministers touched the queen on the back when introducing her to his wife. The poms were horrified that a Republic favoring PM of a commonwealth country would dare touch his Queen. He was dubbed "The Lizard of Oz".

From all reports the Queen had no problem whatsoever with Michelle's gesture.

Wouldn't Michelle curtsying to the queen have been just as bad as Obama bowing to the Saudi King?

Talk about mountain out of a mole hill stuff.

It was O acknowledging his Muslim faith before a real King.

Phooeyhttp://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5544/bsflagjz2.gifhttp://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5544/bsflagjz2.gifhttp://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5544/bsflagjz2.gifhttp://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5544/bsflagjz2.gif

It was O acknowledging his Muslim faith before a real King.

Presidents of the US are not supposed to bow to anyone, let alone a king of another country.

Kind of like the bowing Georgy boy did for his kings, his banking buddies. The kind where you go down and don't come up for a breath. Lewinsky style. Im sure you know it well dooter.

Kind of like the bowing Georgy boy did for his kings, his banking buddies. The kind where you go down and dont come up for a breath. Lewinsky style. Im sure you know it well dooter.
<snickers>

I don't think it makes much difference nowadays. It is a sign of respect though. We have the Queens representative here in Canada in the form of Michelle Jean. As far as I know, Obama really enjoyed talking to her on his visit here, but no one has to bow to Michelle Jean.

Why did he bow to the saudi guy. You say because he was recognizing a real King. And what claim to royalty does he have ?

Tick

American Presidents do not bow before Royalty ,nor do we dip our flag in deference or salute.

President Bush in Saudi Land: Questions to Ask While Holding King Abdullah's Hand (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/president-bush-in-saudi-l_b_81016.html)

Fred Kaplan of Slate tells us What Bush's meeting with the Saudi ruler really means (http://www.slate.com/id/2117517/).

NBC's Brian Williams, referenced the hand holding gratuitously 2 years later (http://newsbusters.org/node/11701):


“One final note on Iraq. It comes to us from an Arab summit in Saudi Arabia today where the King of Saudi Arabia criticized what he called America’s ‘illegitimate foreign occupation of Iraq.’ The speech is making headlines because King Abdullah had been a strong ally to President Bush. You may recall this visit by Abdullah to the Bush ranch in Texas and the closeness the two men displayed then. His comments today are the harshest Saudi criticism yet of the war in Iraq.”

Daily Kos noted the speculation about Bush's sexual orientation (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/26/21550/9627) on the left after the incident, then noted this from DemocracyNow!:


... this sends a message throughout the Middle East, and it speaks far louder than the hefty, exorbitant expenditure on propaganda since September 11. It seems the obsession with crude oil prices overwhelmed any other talk about the Arab-Israeli question, about the so-called spread of freedom in the Middle East and more importantly even the so-called war on terrorism and the House of Saud production of fanatical Muslims throughout the world. It was very obvious that all of the vapid speeches that Bush has been making about democracy and reform in the Middle East all are pushed aside in order for those two to get together and for the President to emphasize about what he called one time the permanent friendship between the two governments. Here is somebody, the President of the United States, who made himself totally bogusly a symbol of somebody championing reform and democracy in the Middle East, holding hands, literally in this case, with the head of religious dictatorship, one of the worst violators of human rights throughout the world.

Most blogs about it were not fit to print. So where are all these folks that thought Bush showing a sign of friendship "with the head of religious dictatorship, one of the worst violators of human rights throughout the world" was a big deal, while Obama is showing deference to him in such a subservient manner? Talk about sucking up to dictators, is that the image we want to show the world?

What do you think made the difference?Hello gal:

I don't think there IS a difference. It's been made up by the right wing media. They're the only ones sniveling about it... The world, on the other hand, seems to love the Obamas...

Course, you're the people who think giving back rubs to foreign leaders is the proper thing to do, so you don't have a lot of credibility in how polite society acts.

excon

Hello gal:

I don't think there IS a difference. It's been made up by the right wing media. They're the only ones sniveling about it.... The world, on the other hand, seems to love the Obamas...

Course, you're the people who think giving back rubs to foreign leaders is the proper thing to do, so you don't have a lot of credibility in how polite society acts.

excon

Don't get me going on this one, excon. 'we don't have much credibility in how polite society acts'. Them is fighting words for sure. Just because one person broke the rules, you don't have to paint all of us with the same brush.

We kind of like him up here too; you people 'down there' though put your political dirty laundry out for all to see and I think that defies good manners so don't talk about our credibility being ruptured. I think most of you threw away the book on politically correct so it's a good thing you have a new President with some class and a lovely wife who knows how to dress as well. So you have the best of both worlds right now. They are both doing well on the world stage. I don't think you hear any of us crying fowl about Michelle hugging the Queen instead of bowing; I think that was a lovely gesture and it seems Queen Liz thoroughly enjoyed the gesture. It isn't that she hasn't been 'touched' in 30 years (this is for NoHelp's comment which was crass), she hasn't been handled by a commoner, and never should be.

And just so I get something else thrown in, although we have a Queen, we do enjoy her, she doesn't run our country. She is more or less a figurehead now but nonetheless she deserves respect and we give it her. So even if Obama had bowed to her it would have been out of respect, I guess, for her position and age, I mean you all know, she has nothing to do with your country, so what diference could it have made.

Hogwash about your President doesn't bow to anyone; they are all just people with blood in their veins and do the same things we do on a daily basis.

Tick

dont get me going on this one, excon. Hello again, tick:

I don't think I got you going. You're not the "you" I was referring to.

excon

I think I agree with Twinks on this one. Here is one more small detail that suggests an Obama lean toward Islam.

Judge Hamilton wrote: "The injunction orders the Speaker...that the prayers should not use Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal...If those offering prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives choose to use the Arabic 'Allah'...the court sees little risk that the choice of language would advance a particular religion or disparage others. "

David Hamilton was appointed to the District Court bench by Bill Clinton, even though the American Bar Association called him "not qualified".

Now Obama has appointed him to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Skell, some of your comments are offensive. (Re: G. Bush)

Oh, it musta been the oil.

(You need to watch more than one news report. Was it on Fox by any chance?)

Uhhh, no. It came from the AP and AFP.

Not only did BO bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, MO went on to put her hands on the Queen of England, another MAJOR breach of etiquette.

Here are the photos:

http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2009/04/03/448403/obamas420-420x0-420x0.jpg


Maybe Obama was just bending over and getting ready for... something.

Elliot

American Presidents do not bow before Royalty ,nor do we dip our flag in deference or salute.

Well, SOME presidents have been known to dip their wick... but that's another discussion.

Elliot

Flashback to 1994 courtesy of the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/weekinreview/the-world-the-president-s-inclination-no-it-wasn-t-a-bow-bow.html):


THE WORLD; The President's Inclination: No, It Wasn't a Bow-Bow
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: Sunday, June 19, 1994

"IF I see another king, I think I shall bite him," Teddy Roosevelt once growled. Offered that opportunity with the Japanese equivalent last week, Bill Clinton turned out to have had quite something else in mind.

It wasn't a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan.

Canadians still bow to England's Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about? But Mr. Clinton, alas, is not the only one since George Washington who has seemed not quite to know what to make of monarchs.

There was that curtsy, during the Reagan years, when Lenore Annenberg, herself the chief of protocol, forgot herself entirely and did a little dip to greet a visiting Prince Charles. That prompted a stern warning from Miss Manners against those who might mock the effort that "was once put into freeing Americans from the necessity of bending their knees." Soon afterward, when Nancy Reagan greeted Queen Elizabeth II behind closed doors, her press secretary acknowledged that Mrs. Reagan had bowed her head but insisted, "It was definitely not a curtsy."

With the imperial visit last week, official Washington was clearly determined to show that it knew well what courtesies should be showered on the 175th inheritor of the most formal throne on earth.

Guests invited to a white-tie state dinner at the White House (a Clinton Administration first) were instructed to address the Emperor as "Your Majesty," not "Your Highness" or, worse, "King." And in what one Administration aide called "some emperor thing," an Army general was cautioned that he should not address the Emperor Akihito at all as he escorted him to the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery.

But the "thou need not bow" commandment from the State Department's protocol office maintained a constancy of more than 200 years. Administration officials scurried to insist that the eager-to-please President had not really done the unthinkable.

"It was not a bow-bow, if you know what I mean," said Ambassador Molly Raiser, the chief of protocol.

White House officials described Mr. Clinton's tilt as something of an improvisation. Because Emperor Akihito broke with tradition in turn to raise his glass at the state dinner, some even said Mr. Clinton had managed something of a breakthrough.

"Presidents don't bow, and Emperors don't toast," one official said. "So this was a little bit like the cultures meeting each other halfway."

I guess we've gone all the way, the "leader of the free world" becomes "an obsequent President" on his world apology tour. What a disgrace.

Hello again, tick:

I don't think I got you going. You're not the "you" I was referring to.

excon

LOL, okay, you got it anyway ! My two cents, that is :). I usually stay away from the member discussions unless they are presentably mundane and not contreversial. I am a royalist though, coming from 'over there' a few times removed. We like news of our Queen. As I understand it, she is a very agreeable lady.

Tick

Do Canadians pay taxes to subsidize the Royal Family ?

Okay :

The world blames the US for the global recession, but expects our military to protect them?

The world loves Obama, in part because he is the first [half] black POTUS, and Obama is now bowing to other head's of state? Wow, I thought America stood for equality, merit, "fairness?" Did the Saudi king also bow?

Does anyone else see the irony in this?

Yup, change you can believe in.





G&P

I think I agree with Twinks on this one. Here is one more small detail that suggests an Obama lean toward Islam.



Surprise surprise.. A couple of crazy radicals agreeing on an outlandish conspiracy theory.

Skell, some of your comments are offensive. (Re: G. Bush)

Gal, Most of your comments are offensive. (Re: B. Obama)

I find it strange you find my comments offensive re: Bush but not Elliots re: Obama. Actually, no! I don't find it strange.

Skell,

In what way have my comments been offensive? The only thing I have done is state historical fact.

Elliot

Maybe Obama was just bending over and getting ready for... something.

What, a blowjob?

I think Abdullah said ;"ok ...now turn around so we can speak face to face" .

I have been reading this since yesterday and I am trying to give a F@#k about it but it is just not happening. This is beyond silly.

I have been reading this since yesterday and I am trying to give a F@#k about it but it is just not happening. This is beyond silly.
The haters will not be deterred.

I think Abdullah said ;"ok ...now turn around so we can speak face to face" .
Oh I get it, that's your way of saying that Obama is an a$$. Nice one.

I have been reading this since yesterday and I am trying to give a F@#k about it but it is just not happening. This is beyond silly.

No one's asking you to give a%$^ about it, Spit, that's your prerogative. It's a free country, and perhaps it will stay that way if our president stops sucking up to the rest of the world.

The haters will not be deterred.

For once, you're absolutely right. They just keep hating and hating and running their fool mouths (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/6/717154/-TradMed-terrified-of-right-wing-role-in-P-burgh-story) like it was the end of the world.

For once, you're absolutely right. They just keep hating and hating and running their fool mouths like it was the end of the world.I was of course referring to the people on this website but your comment fits in perfectly.

I was of course referring to the people on this website but your comment fits in perfectly.

Obviously you're confused about what a "hater" is, but feel free to point out my "hate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate)." I've already linked to real hate.

Skell,

In what way have my comments been offensive? The only thing I have done is state historical fact.

Elliot

None of them have offended me Elliot. Gal is the one getting all wussy and upset over a couple of Bush jibes. All harmless stuff. Much like your one below.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/bow-not-bow-337886-2.html#post1649432

I just found it funny that he has a problem with my little joke but not yours. Typical though!

For everyone's information:

I am not convinced that Obama is a closet Muslim, but there seems to be a pattern emerging, and we should all be aware.

I hear now that Obama may be OK with a nuclear Iran. Anyone have more info on the veracity of this?

For everyone's information:

I am not convinced that Obama is a closet Muslim, but there seems to be a pattern emerging, and we should all be aware.

I hear now that Obama may be OK with a nuclear Iran. Anyone have more info on the veracity of this?

Haven't heard this?

I thought he was for worldwide nuclear disarmament?

For everyone's information:

I am not convinced that Obama is a closet Muslim, but there seems to be a pattern emerging, and we should all be aware.

I hear now that Obama may be OK with a nuclear Iran. Anyone have more info on the veracity of this?

That's a load on both counts.

Just because he's not threatening to start a third war doesn't mean he's "OK with a Nuclear Iran". It means that unlike his predecessor who couldn't complete a cogent and coherent sentence Obama is making a serious effort to find common ground with Iran on Afghanistan and Iraq. One way is to dispel the Bush-era threat of regime change in order to get Iran to stop it's nuclear "power" program and stop sending insurgents across the border.

I'm glad we're free of the Elmer Fudd / Dr. Evil administration with their ACME brand intelligence and secret death squads. We might actually get something accomplished in the world that doesn't involve getting us into a war. I want to see Obama's policies WORK, that's why I voted for him.

That's a load on both counts.

Just because he's not threatening to start a third war doesn't mean he's "OK with a Nuclear Iran". It means that unlike his predecessor who couldn't complete a cogent and coherent sentence Obama is making a serious effort to find common ground with Iran on Afghanistan and Iraq. One way is to dispel the Bush-era threat of regime change in order to get Iran to stop it's nuclear "power" program and stop sending insurgents across the border.

This paragraph makes two assumptions based on "facts" that are not in evidence.

The first is that Iran's problem with the Western world and the USA in particular is because of our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I seem to remember the current Iranian government taking American hostages back in 1978. I also seem to remember them, much more recently, threatening to wipe a US ally off the map. I also remember them attacking Iraq (and vise-versa) for a 10-year period in the 1980s. So, exactly what part of our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has been the cause of their beligerence and desire for nuclear weapons?

Second, you are assuming that the "Bush-era threat of regime change" is a bad thing. As a student of the Middle-Eastern mind and its philosophies, I can tell you that the only way to get through to a Muslim extremist (which is exactly what Ahmadinejad is) is to scare the crap out him... and carry through with the threat if he doesn't become scared. To most Middle-Easterners, what you and I call "reasonable" and "peaceful" are seen as signs of weakness. And weakness is something to be exploited. Only strength -- military might -- is respected. As long as Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs are in charge, they will see any attempts by Obama to "negotiate in good faith", be "reasonable", and "make peace" as signs of weakness. They will believe either that the USA wants something from them, which means they have the upper hand in world diplomacy, or else they will believe that the USA is incapable of stopping them from doing whatever they want. Only through a true threat of military superiority by the USA over Iran will the leadership in Iran become quiescent. And proof of that military strength must be demonstrated over and over again. This is a fact born out, time and again, throughout history. Just look at the history of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict for evidence... every time Israel makes a concession, the attacks against them by PA terrorists increase. Every time Israel shows its strength by invading and controlling West Bank territory, the attacks decrease significantly.

Bush understood that fact of Middle-Eastern mentality. Obama clearly does not.


I'm glad we're free of the Elmer Fudd / Dr. Evil administration with their ACME brand intelligence and secret death squads. We might actually get something accomplished in the world that doesn't involve getting us into a war. I want to see Obama's policies WORK, that's why I voted for him.

First of all, what "death squads"? I sense some hyperbole here.

Second of all, based on what I have said above, the chances are very high that not only will Obama's policies fail miserably in bringing peace and a decrease in nuclear weapons, but that Iran and other rogue regimes will become nuclear powers in their own rights. I also forsee a worldwide increase in terrorism over the next 4 years. The world will become LESS secure, LESS peaceful and more dangerous. And in 4 years, we will HAVE to go to war with SOMEONE, because Obama will have made us look weak in the eyes of the rest of the world. And given his cuts in the military budget, that image may end up being the reality.

Elliot

And in 4 years, we will HAVE to go to war with SOMEONE, because Obama will have made us look weak in the eyes of the rest of the world. Why would someone wage war on your country simply because they assume you "look weak"?

Why would someone wage war on your country simply because they assume you "look weak"?

Ask those responsible for "man-caused disasters."


Bin Laden: “It Is Very Easy To Target [America’s] Flimsy Base (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.47/pub_detail.asp) And … We Will Be Able Crush And Destroy Them.” BIN LADEN: “In conclusion, America is definitely a great power, with an unbelievable military strength and a vibrant economy, but all of these have been built on a very weak and hollow foundation. Therefore, it is very easy to target that flimsy base and concentrate on their weak points and even if we are able to target one tenth of these weak points, we will be able [to] crush and destroy them and remove them from ruling and conquering the World.” (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03) The Terrorists On Their Propaganda Strategy


Osama Bin Laden: America's "Combat Strategy Is Heavily Dependent On The Psychological Aspect Of War … Which Hides The Cowardice (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/whattheybelieve.html)And Lack Of Fighting Spirit Of The American Soldier." BIN LADEN: "It has been made clear during our defending and fighting against the American enemy that this enemy's combat strategy is heavily dependent on the psychological aspect of war due to its large and efficient media apparatus and of course its indiscriminate aerial bombing which hides the cowardice and lack of fighting spirit of the American soldier. … Likewise, let me remind you of the defeat of the American forces in Beirut in 1982, soon after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, when the Lebanese resistance was personified by the truck laden with explosives that struck the main military base of the US Marines in Beirut, killing 242 soldiers – towards Hell was their destination and what an evil destination that is." (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)


Bin Laden: "In Somalia … The United States [Pulled] Out, Trailing Disappointment, Defeat, And Failure Behind It." BIN LADEN: "We found that out from our brothers who fought the Americans in Somalia. They did not see it as a power worthy of any mention. It was the big propaganda that the United State used to terrify people before fighting them. Our brothers, who were here in Afghanistan, also tried the Americans. God gave them and the mujahidin success in Somalia and the United States pull out, trailing disappointment, defeat, and failure behind it. It achieved nothing. It left quicker than people had imagined." (Full Text Of Interview With Al-Qaeda Leader Osama Bin Laden, 10/21/01)

Was Osama Right? (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010080)
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.


From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.

Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.Doesn't that defeat your point?

Doesn't that defeat your point?

Um, no. If we encourage or confirm that perception it emboldens them.


More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S. are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.

Where is that quote from?

Um, no. If we encourage or confirm that perception it emboldens them.Hello Steve:

I've heard this myth about "emboldening" our enemy because we're not like them... I don't buy it for a minute, and I didn't buy it when the dufus was saying it, either.

They are also saying some real stupid crap about how the enemy will be emboldened if they learn about our interrogation techniques, and that's why we must keep them secret...

Really! That is the STUPIDIST CRAP I've ever heard... Look, these people BLOW themselves up! Do you think discovering they'll be waterboarded if they're caught will deter them?? Stupid, stupid, stupid!

I guess this is what you're left with when you define the world as either good or evil.

excon

Suggested reading material: "Three Feathers" (At least I think that is the correct title)

Where is that quote from?

The article you think defeats my point. You might try reading it before making assumptions.

Hello Steve:

I've heard this myth about "emboldening" our enemy because we're not like them... I don't buy it for a minute, and I didn't buy it when the dufus was saying it, either.

It's a little more than "because we're not like them," but nevertheless, wasn't 9/11 proof enough?


They are also saying some real stupid crap about how the enemy will be emboldened if they learn about our interrogation techniques, and that's why we must keep them secret...

Really! That is the STUPIDIST CRAP I've ever heard... Look, these people BLOW themselves up! Do you think discovering they'll be waterboarded if they're caught will deter them?? Stupid, stupid, stupid!

On that I agree when we're talking Islamofascists, they could care less what our interrogation techniques are, but I don't think the argument was it would "embolden them," it was that they could train to resist specific techniques. Either way you're right, they blow themselves up so why should they care?


I guess this is what you're left with when you define the world as either good or evil.

What are we left with if we don't? That's my question, care to answer it?

The article you think defeats my point. You might try reading it before making assumptions.Yea I read it, I don't agree with it. Different opinions.

Hello Steve:

I've heard this myth about "emboldening" our enemy because we're not like them... I don't buy it for a minute, and I didn't buy it when the dufus was saying it, either.

They are also saying some real stupid crap about how the enemy will be emboldened if they learn about our interrogation techniques, and that's why we must keep them secret...

Really! That is the STUPIDIST CRAP I've ever heard... Look, these people BLOW themselves up! Do you think discovering they'll be waterboarded if they're caught will deter them?? Stupid, stupid, stupid!

I guess this is what you're left with when you define the world as either good or evil.

Excon


From ET's post the prior page





Just look at the history of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict for evidence... every time Israel makes a concession, the attacks against them by PA terrorists increase. Every time Israel shows its strength by invading and controlling West Bank territory, the attacks decrease significantly.






How about in playgrounds? Do you want the schoolyard bully to perceive you as weak?

I think it is fine to use diplomacy, and try to find common ground, understanding and mutual respect. I am for all that, short of war; but after WTC 1, the Cole bombings and no US response, what happened? POTUS Obama better make it clear to others that He and the country he represents is not going to just bow down, like POTUS Clinton did.






G&P

Yea I read it, I don't agree with it. Different opinions.

There's no surprise. Some day you may figure out that "opinions" confirmed by actions become facts.

There's no surprise. Some day you may figure out that "opinions" confirmed by actions become facts.That sentence makes no logical sense whatsoever. If it is my opinion that people are basically good and I treat them that way then my action becomes a fact - is that what you mean?

:rolleyes:

That sentence makes no logical sense whatsoever. If it is my opinion that people are basically good and I treat them that way then my action becomes a fact - is that what you mean?

:rolleyes:

It doesn't make sense? Gee, terrorist who hates us and all we stand for sees weakness, attacks, thousands die - and you think that's an opinion?

It doesn't make sense? Gee, terrorist who hates us and all we stand for sees weakness, attacks, thousands die - and you think that's an opinion?By your own words earlier they think you are weak simply because you are the USA, not because of who's at the helm. Remember, they hate you for your "freedoms".

By your own words earlier they think you are weak simply because you are the USA, not because of who's at the helm. Remember, they hate you for your "freedoms".

Whatever, NK, you apparently think is a game. It's not.

So people are basically good and we should treat them with respect? Sounds a lot like Ahmadinejad.


Ahmadinejad to the West: Mind Your Manners

"…In order to take control of the [world's] people, the arrogant ones, those who speak through violence, the [most] corrupt people in history, are targeting first and foremost the honor [of the world's peoples], since a man who loses his honor is ready to bear any suffering and is trampled and easily eliminated. It is impossible for the arrogant ones to overcome a society and a population who have tasted the taste of honor…

"Seven years ago, following the Iranian nation's steadfast stand on the nuclear issue, the enemies took up positions on both sides of Iran's borders, in the east and in the west, and announced that the reason for their military show of force was in order to contain the Iranian nation in the Middle East region. Several times they made as though they were about to attack [Iran], with military preparations and threats against the Iranian nation. However, by the grace of God and thanks to the Iranian nation's steadfastness, and thanks to the values of the martyrs, they were defeated…"

Ahmadinejad then addressed the world powers, saying: "We advise you to correct your behavior, since the world is changing… Stop the egotism, the aggression, and the lack of manners. Speak to the [world's] nations in a correct manner and politely…"

Iran "Is Known to the World as a Nation that Cannot Be Defeated"

"Thanks to the steadfastness of the Iranian nation, which stands behind the dear leader [Khamenei], this nation continues in its glorious path and is known to the world as a nation that cannot be defeated. Today, thanks to great achievements, the threat to Iran has been lifted, and no power in the world entertains the notion of taking action against the Iranian nation. Even if someone were to entertain this notion and want to undertake any act of aggression against the nation… he should know that the Iranian nation is ready, and any hand outstretched in order to attack will be cut off.

"The Iranian nation is one of civilization, culture, and values. It is peace-loving, and [its people are] people of reason and dialogue, justice and brotherhood. It desires that this atmosphere should exist throughout the world. They [the West] say that the world cannot be run through terror or militarism. We say the same thing; in fact, this is the deepest wish of the Iranian nation. However, the question here is: why are they making shows of force thousands of kilometers from their borders and attacking other nations? Stop your shows of force and aggression, and look to the world in peace and tranquility…"

All who believe the Mahdi Hatter is peace loving, raise your hand.

Here's some "basically good" drama from the Gaza Islamic University (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD230809):


"You Must Drink From the Blood of Muslims… But Mix It With Soda Water"

Jewish father: "We Jews hate the Muslims. We love killing Muslims. We Jews love drinking the blood of Muslims and the blood of Arabs. Are you Arabs? Are you Muslims? I hate you. Yes, I hate you. I hate you in order to please God. In order to please God… In order to please God…"

Shimon, his son: "Dad, I don’t know how God could possibly be pleased with you when you stink so much. You haven’t taken a shower for two years, yet you talk about pleasing God."

Father: "In order to please God… Shimon, my son, I’d like to teach you something. You must hate the Muslims."

Shimon: "Of course I hate them."

Father: "You must drink from the blood of Muslims."

Shimon: "But mix it with soda water."

Father: "I talked to the rabbi, [who told me] you should hate the Muslims, so God will be pleased with you."

Shimon: "Don’t worry, dad."

Father: "Very well, my son. I also want to remind you that you must hate the Muslims."

Shimon: "I do hate the Muslims!"

"Drink From the Blood of Muslims... Wash Our Hands with the Blood of Muslims"

Father: "

Father: "

Shimon: "Okay, but just one cup, because I’m full."

Shimon: "Very well, my son. God will be pleased with you. Come, my son, I want you to pray. Stand next to me and pray.

[…]

"I’m telling you to stand next to me and pray."

Father: "I’ll be back in a minute."I’m telling you to stand next to me and pray."Where are you going, son?"I’ll be back in a minute."To perform the ablution."Where are you going, son?"What? "To perform the ablution."I’m going to perform the ablution. Didn’t you want to pray?"What?!"Ablution is for Muslims. We don’t do that."I’m going to perform the ablution. Didn’t you want to pray?"They perform the ablution with water."Ablution is for Muslims. We don’t do that."We should wash our hands with the blood of Muslims."

Here's some "They perform the ablution with water." child education from Saudi Cleric Khaled Al-Khlewi (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD231009):


"So, my friends, the conclusion we may draw from this introduction is that with the Jews, nothing works but force. Memorize the following parable, just like I learned it from others: 'Kiss the head of a Jew, and he will deceive you - deceive him, and he will kiss your head.' The Jew is treacherous, disloyal, deceitful, and belligerent by nature. Nothing works with him but force.


Khaled Al-Khlewi: "We should wash our hands with the blood of Muslims."

Omar: "Eight years old."basically good"[The Jews] Wanted to Kill the Prophet Muhammad... What Are They Doing to Our Muslim Brothers Now? They Are Killing Them"How old are you, Omar?"Do you like the Jews?"

"No."

Khaled Al-Khlewi: "You hate them. Why do you hate them? What did the Jews do?"

Omar: "They wanted to kill the Prophet Muhammad."

Khaled Al-Khlewi: "Well done. They wanted to kill the Prophet Muhammad. And what are they doing to our Muslim brothers now? They are killing them. When you curse them, what do you say? 'Oh God…'?"

Omar: "Oh God, destroy the Jews."

Khaled Al-Khlewi: Well done. 'And support…'?"

Khaled Al-Khlewi: "The Muslims."

Yep, nothing a little understanding won't cure.

I'll never understand the Faux News crowd.

So people are basically good and we should treat them with respect? Well I just used that as an example but apparently you spend an hour looking for info to prove that there are some bad people - I'm pretty sure I knew that. There are warmongers amongst us.

Well I just used that as an example but apparently you spend an hour looking for info to prove that there are some bad people - I'm pretty sure I knew that. There are warmongers amongst us.

I hate warmongers, ( was bush one of those) they are bad people.

Tick

I'll never understand the Faux News crowd.

Um, exactly what is the relevance of that comment?

Well I just used that as an example but apparently you spend an hour looking for info to prove that there are some bad people - I'm pretty sure I knew that. There are warmongers amongst us.

You're a funny guy... 5 minutes at Memri and you can get a lot. You guys think Fox news is the worst thing in the world but don't blink at Palestinian TV. You guys think Christian evangelicals are dangerous but a Saudi cleric teaching 8-year-olds to hate Jews doesn't raise an eyebrow. What a warped, warped world you live in.

You're a funny guy...5 minutes at Memri and you can get a lot. You guys think Fox news is the worst thing in the world but don't blink at Palestinian TV. You guys think Christian evangelicals are dangerous but a Saudi cleric teaching 8-year-olds to hate Jews doesn't raise an eyebrow. What a warped, warped world you live in.

No! This is what I see;

Fox News for what it is,
NBC for what it is,
Palestinian TV for what it is,
Some Christian Evangelicals as dangerous, and
Saudi Clerics teaching 8 year old's to hate as disgraceful.

You see, I see it all as being in the same big basket. I don't see one side as good and the other as evil. They are all as bad as one another and we'd probably be better off without them. The with us or against us model simply doesn't and hasn't worked.

Um, exactly what is the relevance of that comment?
Do I really need to draw you a picture?

The hypocrite repubs on this boart showed no indignation when:

http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_kiss.jpg

And

http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_saudi7.jpg

American Presidents do not bow before Royalty ,nor do we dip our flag in deference or salute.But they will bo to religious leaders?

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg145/2tuff2006/BushPopeRatz-1.jpg

[QUOTE]The hypocrite repubs on this boart showed no indignation when:

http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_kiss.jpg

Nice Photoshopping. On the 2nd, it's been addressed, where've you been?

Do I really need to draw you a picture?

Yes, please. I sourced The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/president-bush-in-saudi-l_b_81016.html), Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2117517/), Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/node/11701), Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/26/21550/9627), the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/weekinreview/the-world-the-president-s-inclination-no-it-wasn-t-a-bow-bow.html), Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate), Claremont (http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.47/pub_detail.asp), Discover the Networks (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/whattheybelieve.html), The Wall Street Journal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010080) and Memri. (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD230809)

A couple of minutes of research tells me that as far as I know the only ones that have mentioned Fox News are you and Wondergirl (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/bow-not-bow-337886.html#post1646623). So what's the relevance?

But they will bo to religious leaders?

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg145/2tuff2006/BushPopeRatz-1.jpg

From the horse's mouth, 11-June-2007 -- Catholic World News Brief (http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=79632)


President Bush drew a laugh from the Pope when he answered another question. The Pope asked whether a meeting between the US leader and Russian President Vladimir Putin had been productive. Bush replied, gesturing toward the reporters, "I'll tell you in a few minutes."

President Bush, who is a Methodist, did not bow when he met the Pope, and consistently addressed the Pontiff as "Sir."

President Bush, who is a Methodist, did not bow when he met the Pope, and consistently addressed the Pontiff as "Sir."
Oh really?

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/images/bush_bow.jpg

Bow - I guess. Bent over :rolleyes: ?

I wonder if Obama bent or bowed for Rev. Wright? Oh that's right, Obama threw him under the bus after 20 years of not realizing what the Rev's views on America were :eek:






G&P

Bow - I guess. Bent over :rolleyes: ?Which is exactly what Obama did with the Queen. :rolleyes: You guys can be so blinded to only see stuff you want to see.

http://images.smh.com.au/2009/04/03/448297/obamabow420-420x0.jpg
That's a bow. What Bush did was nod... it's very common among we Texans and many others in the south to nod when greeting someone.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." G.W.B.—Washington, D.C. Aug. 5, 2004

"One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis."—Washington, D.C. Jan. 12, 2009

"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best."—Washington, D.C. Jan. 12, 2009

All quotes G.W. Bush

I don't know why he bowed, but it was a mistake. I'm a big Obama fan, and regret that he did this. He's the President of the United States, which came about because we live in a democracy that chose him on his qualities and the power of his campaign. He earned his role. Monarchs become monarchs because they are born, which to me, is a holdover from another era.

In the end, though, it's a minor issue. Don't read too much into it.

Let's see some video, that just looks like he dropped something.

LEUif1--r38

It looks like he bowed. I don't see how that could be construed as picking something up that someone had dropped.

Tick

Hello again:

I'm just amazed that bowing is all you got... You righty's are getting sillier every day.

excon

Um, didn't we go to war in the 1700's over not bowing to royalty? You might think it's silly, but American presidents do NOT bow to other world leaders. And yes, even Bush's hand holding was embarrassing, but at least it wasn't subservient. Our "leader," the Commander in Chief, the "leader of the free world" showing such submissive gestures is pathetic. Such symbolism has some serious meaning to a world that wants nothing more than to see us brought to our knees.

Such symbolism has some serious meaning to a world that wants nothing more than to see us brought to our knees.You might want to talk to a therapist about that persecution complex. BTW the US is so far up the Saudi's butt that it really doesn't matter what your president does.

Our "leader," the Commander in Chief, the "leader of the free world" showing such submissive gestures is pathetic. Such symbolism has some serious meaning to a world that wants nothing more than to see us brought to our knees.Hello again, Steve:

As you are fond of saying, now we're getting to the heart of it.

You view any foreign policy that isn't belligerent, threatening or saber rattling as weakness. I view THAT policy as making us LESS safe, and by adopting it, we hasten our own demise. Such a policy would wind up with a world that "wants nothing more than see us brought to our knees" - kind of like the one we have now.

Instead, Obama believes in the old Republican saw of "walking softly, while carrying a big stick".

Plus, if you want to talk about pathetic, making up stuff, so that we could invade a country that posed NO THREAT to us, was pretty damn pathetic. One could say that it was a touch more dangerous than bowing. One could say that... Ok, I'M saying that.

excon

You might want to talk to a therapist about that persecution complex. BTW the US is so far up the Saudi's butt that it really doesn't matter what your president does.

I would engage win a battle of wits with you, but I refuse to duel with an unarmed person.

I would engage win a battle of wits with you, but I refuse to duel with an unarmed person.
Hahhahahhahahahha... we're in Grade 3 again! Good one!

Instead, Obama believes in the old Republican saw of "walking softly, while carrying a big stick".

I have no problem with that as a general policy, kind of like negotiating from a position of strength as in the pirate ordeal. When bowing to kings one loses their "stick." You can interpret "stick" any way you'd like... makes no difference.


Plus, if you want to talk about pathetic, making up stuff, so that we could invade a country that posed NO THREAT to us, was pretty damn pathetic. One could say that it was a touch more dangerous than bowing. One could say that... Ok, I'M saying that.

Sheesh, we've been down this road too many times. For that I'll again return to that noble body, the UN (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/index.html). If we "made stuff up" then the UN is just as guilty.


The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material...

Looks like the UN just made stuff up, too. But I guess we should just bow to them anyway (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGE5ZmVmNGE3ZGFjZWRjZTdiOGYwMzU0ODY3NmM0ZDM=).

When bowing to kings one loses their "stick." You can interpret "stick" any way you'd like...makes no difference.
Hello again, Steve:

We're still at the HEART of it. Hang on, we're close to resolution.. (See how good diplomacy can be?? )

From MY point of view, a BOMB is a stick and a BOW is a gesture. How could you see it any other way? Ok, now that that's done, let's get a beer.

excon

PS> Yeah, the UN thought he had WMD's too.. But THEY didn't invade. We did. BIG difference!!

Ok, now that that's done, let's get a beer.

I'm in.

So now we will get to see whether Obama is good for a home run, single, or just strike out.

So now we will get to see whether Obama is good for a home run, single, or just strike out.
Yes you are correct, it will be interesting to see whether he wins it in regulation time, or during the 4 on 4 overtime or in the shootout. Perhaps he'll hole it in from the bunker or have a buzzer beater or even hop over that last checker.

CNN actually did a piece on this AND gave Hotair a hat tip (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/10/video-cnn-mildly-scolds-obama-for-bow-media-for-ignoring-it/). But go on, keep telling us it's all irrelevant and silly.

President Obama wasn't bowing. If you look closely at the photo, you see that the other men in the circle were also bent over looking at what was in front of the Saudi king. President Obama was probably showing off pictures of his daughters or maybe photos of some of the presidential dog contenders. Or maybe they were doing Paper, Stone, and Scissors.

Hello again:

Obama bowing to the Right wing:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon-albums-excon%27s+private+stash-picture290-sho-show.jpg

excon

Hahhahahhahahahha...we're in Grade 3 again! Good one!

I beg your pardon, I have my GED.

Hello again:

Obama bowing to the Right wing:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/excon-albums-excon%27s+private+stash-picture290-sho-show.jpg

excon

Exactly, ex! What Obama meant by all that talk about a new kind of politics and bipartisanship was kiss my a$$.

President Obama wasn't bowing. If you look closely at the photo, you see that the other men in the circle were also bent over looking at what was in front of the Saudi king. President Obama was probably showing off pictures of his daughters or maybe photos of some of the presidential dog contenders. Or maybe they were doing Paper, Stone, and Scissors.

Yeah, Abdullah dropped a contact and Obama was just trying to help him find it.

Yeah, Abdullah dropped a contact and Obama was just trying to help him find it.
So why is everyone else bent over too? They weren't bowing.

So why is everyone else bent over too? They weren't bowing.

Everyone isn't bent over, watch the video (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/bow-not-bow-337886-8.html#post1657080), not the still. The White House hasn't even been truthful about it. From Ben Smith (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html?showall) at Politico:


The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The video clearly shows Obama's left hand in plain view at or on his leg. There was no "two-handed grasp," nothing picked up off the floor, and Obama's height is irrelevant. It was an American president bowing to a king.

the terrorists have won!!!!!

the terrorists have won!!!!!

Yeah, it's good that Bush didn't cancel the election and install himself as dictator for life because secretly, he was planning his next invasion... Canada.

Ok Steve-O.

It was an American president bowing to a king.
Then oil prices will certainly drop. The two of them probably have a secret correspondence going to that effect.

Yeah, it's good that Bush didn't cancel the election and install himself as dictator for life because secretly, he was planning his next invasion...Canada.

Oh, you are cute, aren't you

Tick

Oh, you are cute, arent you

Just wittier than NK. :D

Yeah, it's good that Bush didn't cancel the election and install himself as dictator for life because secretly, he was planning his next invasion...Canada.

Oh, you are cute, aren't you

Tick

Oh, you are cute, arent you

tick

OK, I'm cute.

Saudi's don't wear enclosed shoes. Too hot you see. And apparently the king had contracted a bad case of tinea on an overseas trip and Obama asked to take a look. He gave him a cream to cure it and the king promised to have a chat to his muslim buddies about taking it easy on the US from now on.

Seems like everyone is happy except the right wingers here.

Saudi's dont wear enclosed shoes. Too hot you see. And apparently the king had contracted a bad case of tinea on an overseas trip and Obama asked to take a look. He gave him a cream to cure it and the king promised to have a chat to his muslim buddies about taking it easy on the US from now on.

Seems like everyone is happy except the right wingers here.

Are you sure the tinea was in his feet?

OK, I'm cute.

Sorry for duplicate post.