But did he bow or just lean over to shake?

I'm reminded of that fucking goofy shit last week over if the First Lady hugged the Queen or not, which twisted the British Press' panties.

Now a real Obama fuck-up of an intergalactic scale that nobody, not even me, can salvage was that "Special Olympics" comment on Jay Leno.

Opps.

If he had bowed to the king of another country, would people be so upset? Or are they more upset because it was the Saudi king?? I'm not sure.

Personally, I've always been bothered by all of this nonsense. If it had been about President Bush, I would feel the same way. Showing respect is never a bad thing, and that's what a bow is, IMO. I can understand the people who think it's subservient and that it weakens the President's position. I can also see what Klyd was trying to say. That is, after all, why we call him "Mr. President", which was chosen quite purposefully by the founding fathers.

Honestly, I'm not sure that I feel anything either way. I think that he's trying very hard, that he's new, that he never lived in the White House, or came from a family that spent time with kings and queens, so perhaps he's unsure of protocol. I don't see how that would make him a bad president.

If I had to sum up how I feel about all of this with one gesture, I think it would be a shrug.

Not a big deal one way or the other. To me, it was just a case of "When in Rome..." He was merely trying to show respect to another world leader.

I'm with you Babe. What the hell does it matter if he bows to a king or queen? Why could it possibly matter? Kly, I'm surprised at your post. It smacks of jingoism.

As for Freddie C, George Bush held hands with the same king. Yes, held hands.

After reading the last few posts I was curious as to how Obama first met Queen Elizabeth... here it is (below). There's an ever so slight bow (or lowering of the head):





Personally, I don't see a big deal about this type of formality. Years ago, there was a BIG meeting of heads of state (and I believe JFK was representing the U.S.) and the question of protocol came up. I vaguely remember that it was mentioned that an American president was not supposed to bow down before any other world leader, despite his or her "title". It was also mentioned, at this particular get-together that Haile Selassie was deemed as being on top of the totem pole by virtue of his title of "emperor".

Being that it was to the King of Saudi Arabia is not what is upsetting, at least for me.

The idea that the leader of my nation, would intentionally bow before the leader of ANY nation, ANY King of ANY country, fully knowing what that kind of a gesture really means, is what's upsetting. In fact it is quite appalling.

Now the question here is did he intentionally bow before the King fully knowing the historic significance of that kind of a gesture? I don't think so. At least I sure hope not.

Was it an intentional act of weakness on President Obama's part? Probably not. He probably thought that he was being respectful. Probably felt that he wasn't doing anything wrong. Giving him the benefit of the doubt he probably was not aware of the historic siginificance of bowing before the leader of another country.

I find it really hard to believe that he would do such a thing intentionally knowing that it was wrong.


Anyone who takes the time to research and educate themselves about the historic significance of bowing before a king, a deity or a leader would understand that it is a big deal. Anyone who understands what it means would agree that President Obama made a mistake in doing what he did.


Absence of Malice? Probably. But it shouldn't have been done.

I don't know if I am stating the obvious, but there is a cultural angle to greeting gestures. Handshakes, hugs, pecks on cheek are all acceptable in some cultures and outrageous in others. There is no universal interpretation of what bowing means, it is very culture specific. Along the same lines, I can understand the American perspective and why some are very offended by it.

Not true. It is not only culture specific. Although it may have specific meanings to a specific cultures, it also has a universal meaning.

Universaly, to bow generaly means to indicate humility or submission.

I work with a number of Hasidic clients. They cannot touch a woman, so shaking hands with them (a common business greeting when you meet with a client) is out of the question. Instead, we usually both put our hands behind our backs and bow to one another. In no way, shape or form do I consider them submissive to me, nor do I consider myself consider myself submissive to them. I'm sure they feel the same way that I do. It's a gesture of respect.

You bow to one another. Big difference.

The President Bowed to the King. The King did not bow to our President. They did not bow to each other simultaneously as a greeting gesture. Did not bow to each other to show a MUTUAL respect. For if it was to be a gesture of respect between President Obama and the Saudi King, then the King would have bowed to the President at the same time or at least in response.

For God's sake, I don't know how anyone can even deny or question if this was a bow or not. He looks like he's about to kiss the damn King's pinky ring!





There's a difference.

I agree that it's a bow. I just don't see this as a gesture of submission, but instead one of respect, and I don't see the big deal. There are people who are quite upset, but I personally am not, and it has no bearing on the fact that it's President Obama. If it had been President Bush or Clinton or Reagan, I would still be saying that it's a tempest in a teapot.

With all of the problems that we are facing, why is this the focus?? There is enough trouble without having to borrow any or look for some. Our economy is in shambles, the most trusted and steadfast companies are gone or vanishing, people are going hungry, losing their jobs and losing their homes. Our troops are still in harms way.

Do I really need to get my knickers in a twist because the President did or did not bow to someone??

No you don't Babe. There are bigger fish to fry. However, we have Board members who can't fathom how Republicans lost both the White House and control of Congress all within a two year period. It's trauma to them and they are experiencing shock syndrome. They focus on minutae, not substance.

I know that you would SB and I know that you are sincere. I also know that no matter what President it may have been, be it Obama, Bush, Reagan or Clinton, your feelings about this would be the same. You are one of the most forthcoming and most respectable debators on these boards. And the same can be said for people like TIS and for thata matter a majority of the others here.

Unfortunatley there are still a few here who just don't know how to debate without getting personal. There are a small few here who when they cannot come up with an answer they immedeatly have to revert back to what party lost what position, how the last administration sucked and how the party they voted for now dominates. They just cannot refrain from constantly accusing people who may not agree with them of being bitter.

I for the life of me do not know what the f**k that has to do with what's being discussed. Especially here. But then again, those same people have been making the same transparent replies for quite a while now.

Ehhh, what are you going to do.

I enjoy debating and discussing these kinds of things. Especially with people who state their case, be it for or against what I support, with an educated, relevant and factual reply.

Yes, I agree that in the grand scheme of things this occurance really isn't a big deal. But it's a fun and educational experience to get the different thoughts and ideas from the different people who address what's actually being discussed. Hearing what people have to say about the actual issue being discussed is what helps all of us to become more open minded.

The people who continually revert back to issues that really have no bearing on the facts being discussed, no relevance whatsoever, are the ones that will never be able to grow and open up their own minds because they just don't have any factual knowledge to contribute to a real discussion. It's a shame that one or two here fall into that category. It's unfortunate for them.

I agree with Don Cardi. The photo is a bit unsettling to me (not unsettling enough to make me regret that I voted for Obama) because it is a unilateral gesture, which denotes reverence. He met other world leaders, democratically elected officials like himself, but why did he choose to bow before a ruling monarch as if he were a subject. I'm sure Obama was acting out of respect, but from my view of the photo the gesture is misplaced. He's trying very hard.

It doesn't matter that it was a Saudi. A week ago the Obamas met the Queen and while she received them graciously and the Obamas were gracious in return I don't recall such gestures. In fact, Michelle even placed her arm around the Queen, a gesture that contrasts sharply with Obama's.

I don't mean to sound jingoistic, but bowing before royalty or birthright is inconsistent with the ideals that founded this country. When the President of the United States meets heads of other nations, he does so on the behalf of the American people. I just think he would have been better advised to stand up straight, look him eye to eye and give him a firm handshake as an equal. I know there are many cultures, but the American heritage, even as described by de Tocqueville almost two hundred years ago, is that we don't unilaterally bow or revere monarchs.

Lilo, you can't (with integrity) just define terms to satisfy your polemics. Here's why you're wrong:

Sometimes when the technical aspects of something are rendered in an article for general consumption, the authors use language that, while understandable to most people, does not accurately represent technical provisions of that something. This is the case with many of the articles available on the Web about the federal government’s financial relationship with AIG and GM. Thus,
• The initial $85 billion (and subsequent) loaned by the Fed to AIG is secured by a pledge of AIG’s assets.
• Additionally security is provided through AIG issuance of preferred stock convertible into 79 percent of AIG's outstanding common stock which was placed in a Treasury Dept trust.
• Why preferred, why the Treasury, and why a trust? Because preferred stock holders receive dividends before common stock and are entitled to any settlement before common stock holders; the Treasury because it sold debt on behalf of the Fed; and in a trust to remove any conflict of interest. Why convertible? Because the Fed wants repayment not ownership.

• Nevertheless, the rights of the Federal Reserve are no more than those typical of a large creditor and are governed by the agreement between the Fed and AIG. As a result and among other things, AIG agreed to replace its CEO and the New York Federal Reserve Bank established a team to review the financial condition of AIG, and monitor the implementation of AIG's plan to restructure itself. However, the Federal Reserve does not have statutory authority over AIG.
• Subsequently, the Treasury Dept. loaned AIG over $40 billion in return for which AIG issued additional preferred stock to Treasury.
The Fed and Treasury hope is that the value of AIG’s assets can eventually increase to a level sufficient for AIG to sell them to repay its loans. That is why all of the loans have been restructured a couple of times already to accommodate economic changes. Thus,
• in consultation with management of AIG and outside advisers retained by the Federal Reserve, the Fed announced on March 2, 2009 a plan designed to provide longer-term stability to AIG while at the same time facilitating divestiture of its assets and maximizing likelihood of repayment to the U.S. government.
The Fed and Treasury are not necessarily interested in AIG surviving. They are interested primarily in AIG being able to sell its components to buyers who will use those components to provide insurance to customers just as AIG did.
On the other hand, the federal government has loaned a relatively small amount to GM (compared to AIG) which is collateralized by GM’s assets for the purpose of assisting GM’s survival. The federal government does not own any portion of AIG or GM.

Bowing does not equate to submission. In fact it is common protocol in many cultures. Kneeling is a sign of subservience. A bow, however, is merely a sign of respect.

BUT when Bush was holding the Saudi Prince's hand, W's hand was on the inside, that makes Bush the bottom in this relationship, the bitch of the Saudi Prince. So there!!

I trust that he bowed, and if this is the worst we can dig up I guess Obama is doing pretty damn good. How did the last fella meet with world leaders? Oh yeah, he made one his lapdog and killed another while dismantling Iraq's government and establishing a psuedo-democracy in its place.

Of all the things going wrong in the world, how high would you rank this "bow"? War, Famine, Pestilence, Grey's Anatomy, Rape...hymmm, not even in my top 100,000 list. The world's on fire, and we gotta argue protocol.

Good points Salad. I agree with you that it was a sign of respect in a world and culture which places alot of emphasis on respect and which feels that there are elements of western culture and government which are disrespectful.

I must respectfully disagree with you Saladbar. Bowing is not merely just a sign of respect. There is much deeper meaning to bowing, especially when it's to a King, a leader of a government, etc. But once again I'll say what I said earlier in case you missed it; I don't believe that President Obama bowed with the intention of signifiying that the King that he was bowing to was better than him. As I also said earlier, I don't believe that President Obama fully understood that if he bowed it could appear as if he was being subservient or submissive. I do believe that the President, much like you, felt that his bow was just a sign of resepct.





I guess you missed my other post :

We will never know what his intent on bowing was. That's between him and God. Do I like the fact that he bowed? Hell NO!!

Nicely put SB. It's hard not to "rehash" over and over again, the sins of the past, but I'll refrain. Let me just say, IMHO, this IS much ado about nothing. There are so many other ills of the world that we should be outraged about and this sure as hell isn't one of them.


TIS

This from a woman, who for 8 years, had this portrait hanging over her bed!




But rumor has it that you now put this one uip in it's place :

A little relief of sorts. Since Rush Limbaugh has been so critical of our President, I composed this little ditty about him sung to the tune of Jimmy Dean's "Big John":

Ode To Rush (sung to the tune of Big John by Jimmy Dean)

Every morning at the bakery you could see him arrive
He stood 4 ft. 6 and weighed 285
Kind of narrow at the shoulders and broad at the hip
And every one could see the jelly drippin’ from his lip
Big Rush.

Everyone knew where Rush called home
It was done at the deli where he ate all alone
Could never say much with his mouth full of food
And if you got too close your fingers you could lose
Big Rush

Somebody said he came from Mis-sour-i (pronounced Miz-or-ee)
Where he once consumed an entire Dairy Queen
Ate up all the fries, the burgers and cream
Then set his sights on the shake machine
Big Rush

Then came the day at the pizza place
When the oven broke and his heart did race
At its door he was prayin’ and his stomach growled
Like an angry wolf he began to howl.

Then he spotted a kid with the last pizza pie
And he was gonna’ get it even if he died
So he chased the kid who started cryin’
But Rush loves food and wouldn’t be denied

He grabbed the pizza and gobbled it down
Then he felt the pain as he fell to the ground
He knew right then he had paid the price
But he yelled as he fell “Just one more slice.”
Big Rush

Grabbing his chest in such great pain
He looked around for a liberal to blame
The medics worked hard to keep him alive
But a big fat man is hard to revive

They did their best to save the life
Of a man whose motto was “Buffet - half price”
[fade]Big Rush, Big Rush-ush, Big Fat Rush, Big Rush

Very good ollie!

That's hysterical, Ollie.

Unfortunately, a Democrat in the White House only gives that fat pig a bigger stage.

The four most hateful and ignorant words ever uttered in American politics: "I hope he fails."

I guess Ol' Rush means he hopes Obama fails to bring our troops home safely?

I guess that means he hopes Obama fails to help revive the economy?

I guess that means he hopes Obama fails at further bridging the gap between races and religions?

I guess that means he hopes Obama fails at, well, everything.

Because God forbid these things actually come to be with a Democrat in the White House.

He should've died from the fucking painkillers, the fat junkie hypocrite.

Anyone in this country who "Hopes" that their own President fails is just an ignorant and hateful person.

Ollie,

That was very good.




TIS

DC,

Ha ha ha Very funny. Bush in front of Mt. Rushmore? Talk about out of place. Man the day that happens please lock me up. Btw, I heard a rumor that this was the picture hanging above your fireplace. Your hero, no doubt?


TIS

TIS darling, if there was going to be any picture above DC's bed, it would be this one:

Ha ha ha ha of course, Hillary. How could I forget. SB that's great. This will really get DC all excited.

Hillary....pantsuit and all. What do ya say DC? Pretty hot hu????


TIS

Wouldn't that kill his sex life?

I mean just ask Bill.