The issues with the Administration's latest moves are
1) By what right does the federal government take it upon itself to fire the head of a private company? There's no statute that allows the President to do that. His aides were talking about remaking the board of GM. Again, even if Obama's team were competent enough to do that, what gives them the right? Who else is eligible to be fired by the President? What gives the President the right to dictate mergers?
Lilo, surely you know the President did not fire the head of any private company. By virtue of the loans the federal government made to GM, the federal government is a GM creditor and lienholder. Given its position as such, the federal government has significant influence on GM. Any company or person who extends a significant amount of credit to a company can exercise such influence if its stake is large enough. The President exercised that influence by encouraging the GM head to step down.
Hi Olivant: I think that the difference between "firing" and "asking someone to resign" is pretty small in most cases and in this instance I don't see a difference.
The Federal government does not have ownership of GM or Chrysler. It does have ownership of AIG and significant equity interest in Citigroup. It also has a host of regulatory and legal mechanisms by which to force banks or bank holding companies to modify behavior. So far it has not seen fit to exercise the same power on the financial sector that it is bringing to bear on GM, although in my opinion the financial sector is both more at fault and more dangerous to everyone's economic future.
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Winter is Coming Now this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
Re: Random obama Whoring
[Re: Lilo]
#536109 04/01/0907:07 PM04/01/0907:07 PM
Well, the "right" you refer to in your post is as I explained: the federal government feels that its creditor status is best preserved by the departure of the GM head.
Also, the federal government does not have ownership of or an ownership interest in either AIG or Citigroup. In exchange for federal loans, those two companies have pledged a certain amount of their equity as collateral for those loans in case they default on the loan terms. Such equity does not constitute ownership.
I'm not sure what you are referring to by "bringing to bear on GM". The loans to AIG and Citigroup are meant to assist it with meet past finanical liabilities; the loans to GM are meant to assist it with meeting current and future financial liabilities.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
In a move sure to spark outrage, the White House announced today that GM and Chrysler must cease participation in NASCAR at the end of the 2009 season if they hope to receive any additional financial aid from the government. Companies around the globe—Honda and Audi, to name two—have drawn down racing operations, and NASCAR itself has already felt the pinch in the form of reduced team spending. A complete withdrawal from America’s premier racing series is expected to save more than $250 million between GM and Chrysler, a substantial amount considering the drastic measures being implemented elsewhere.
“Automakers used to operate on the principle of ‘win on Sunday, sell on Monday,’ but the Auto Task Force’s research just doesn’t validate that as true,” said the statement from President Obama. While fans have decried the Car of Tomorrow for heavily limiting what little personalization the cookie-cutter series had previously allowed to participating manufacturers, and drivers have slammed its brick-like aerodynamics and unpredictable handling, even the governmental oversight committee sees that the full-scale regulation of the cars leaves the manufacturers very little space for research and development. “NASCAR is a racing series that regulates down to the smallest detail of the cars, where a car badged a Chevrolet or Dodge differs only marginally from a Ford or a Toyota. There’s no technological development to speak of.”
The statement goes on further to say the same demand will be made of Ford if it asks for government assistance. “In order to receive this money, corporations must demonstrate they will spend it wisely. Racing has been said to improve on-road technology, but frankly, NASCAR almost flaunts its standing among the lowest-tech forms of motorsport. NASCAR is not proven to drive advancements that transfer from the racetrack to the road, and this nation’s way forward does not hinge on decades-old technology. We need new, and we need innovation.”
The President realizes this will be an unpopular call, but stands behind the decision, saying, “This is an obvious cut to make, but it is not an easy one. This administration is not ignoring the tremendous sentimental value and emotional appeal NASCAR holds for so many Americans. But now is not the time for sentiment and nostalgia; now is a time for decisive financial action. If our automotive industry is to emerge from this recession intact, then these difficult decisions must be made.”
Both Chevrolet and Dodge see the move as only temporary, and fully expect to resume racing in NASCAR as soon as they have stabilized and the government’s hand in their operations is minimized. “There is nothing really to say at this point,” said one representative, who wished to remain anonymous. “We’ve been doing this since the beginning, and we always assumed we’d be doing this until the end. Heck, nobody ever thought to think that there would be an end. But we ain’t done. As soon as this is over, we’re taking back our spot at the top.”
NASCAR officials remain tight-lipped about the call, but sources say series president Mike Helton and team managers are exploring several options, including other manufacturers to fill Chevrolet and Dodge’s vacated positions. Given the company’s recent interest in motorsport and the steady cash-flow and V-8 engine provided by its new Genesis sedan, sources indicate that NASCAR is pinging Hyundai to gauge the Korean company’s interest in occupying a spot in NASCAR. “Toyota was not well-received their first year in the sport, nor was their first season an easy one,” the source says. “But they learned, they applied the lessons, and they have proven very competitive this year.”
If Hyundai does indeed join the series, there will no doubt be a steep learning curve, and the move would leave Ford the lone domestic battling a pair of Asian makes in America’s most popular racing series. We wonder, however, how long NASCAR could hold that title without two of its most storied participants.
"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." JFK
If you're talking about this Geoff, sounds like it was all an April Fools hoax. Good one
So was my other post today...
Ha ha!! You got me then. I thought everyone hear believed it.
TIS
"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." JFK
Well, the "right" you refer to in your post is as I explained: the federal government feels that its creditor status is best preserved by the departure of the GM head.
Also, the federal government does not have ownership of or an ownership interest in either AIG or Citigroup. In exchange for federal loans, those two companies have pledged a certain amount of their equity as collateral for those loans in case they default on the loan terms. Such equity does not constitute ownership.
I'm not sure what you are referring to by "bringing to bear on GM". The loans to AIG and Citigroup are meant to assist it with meet past finanical liabilities; the loans to GM are meant to assist it with meeting current and future financial liabilities.
The Treasury has 80% of AIG's voting shares; that's ownership. AIG lost $61 Billion last quarter, more than any company in history. So its liabilities are ongoing.
When I say "bringing to bear on GM" I am referring to the evident eagerness to force GM to break union and franchise contracts or cut worker salaries with the extreme reluctance to make AIG or other such companies do anything similar.
If Chavez or Putin were forcing out company heads and directing companies to merge , we would be reading numerous editorials in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc about the dangers of political control of private companies.
I don't think the President has many good choices to make here. But my major point in all of this is that he (and the Democrats) are taking on a major political risk by getting involved in decision making in the auto industry, a role they've generally avoided in the financial industry.
The double standard is obvious and it stinks. If things turn around by 2010 or 2012, assuming there IS still anyone left working in Michigan, this will mostly be forgiven by Michigan Obama voters. If things haven't rebounded by then and the President is perceived as the man who broke the UAW and wiped out GM/Chrysler while coddling "East Coast bankers" there will be some political consequences.
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Winter is Coming Now this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
Re: Random obama Whoring
[Re: Lilo]
#536157 04/02/0909:20 AM04/02/0909:20 AM
I to am watching news coverage from Obama's trip. Seems to be going well. Of course the media is desperately trying to point out any "slip-ups." This morning on MSN it's how Michelle supposedly touched the Queen, which is a no-no????? (I don't know anything about these things.
On the other hand, it was reported that Gordon Brown was (as they reported) grinning ear to ear, because he's not the most popular PM in the UK and was happy to be associated with such a popular American President.
Anyway, I hope the best and pray that there are some accomplishments, agreements and compromises during this trip to not only help my country, but all the countries, and also to restore respect from other countries as well.
TIS
"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." JFK
Hey TIS. Supposedly nobody is allowed to touch old Queenie but Bush put his arm around her once, and i suppose she would rather have a hug off Michelle than George
Obama was striding around yesterday shaking policemans hands and grinning from ear to ear. Surly old Brown was following him like a lap dog with a crusty old smile painted on his craggy old face. Needless to say he didn't shake anybody else's hand,but there again nobody was offering
Protesters aside,this leadership love in seems to be going swimmingly!!
Last edited by Yogi Barrabbas; 04/02/0910:31 AM.
I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees!
Yes I see the protesting. It's not only the UK that has anagry citizens. Didn't one person die?
I heard earlier in the week (although I can't remember if it was in the UK or the US) where there were protesters, that the employees (I think Wall St.) were told to dress down so as not to be identified. Also, I heard on the news that a couple of these hotshots waved money (sarcastically) in front of the protesters.
TIS
"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." JFK
It was the UK TIS. Bankers were told to dress down but some couldn't help themselves. These rioters though make me laugh. They have an average age of about 17 and are all university drop outs and ex public school boys who have never worked a day in their lives. They survive off their parents money but howl about the evils of capitalism.....
Yesterday, they smashed up the RBS bank,which is now owned by the public and kept afloat by us the taxpayer. So really they are smashing up their own property? They may as well have stopped in their own houses and smashed all their OWN windows!!!!!
Of course they would never do that!
Gormless erections
I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees!
Re: Random obama Whoring
[Re: Lilo]
#536180 04/02/0902:17 PM04/02/0902:17 PM
[quote=olivant]If Chavez or Putin were forcing out company heads and directing companies to merge , we would be reading numerous editorials in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc about the dangers of political control of private companies.
I don't think the President has many good choices to make here. But my major point in all of this is that he (and the Democrats) are taking on a major political risk by getting involved in decision making in the auto industry, a role they've generally avoided in the financial industry.
The double standard is obvious and it stinks. If things turn around by 2010 or 2012, assuming there IS still anyone left working in Michigan, this will mostly be forgiven by Michigan Obama voters. If things haven't rebounded by then and the President is perceived as the man who broke the UAW and wiped out GM/Chrysler while coddling "East Coast bankers" there will be some political consequences.
GM, AIG and the others ASKED for bailout money, and in GM's case there were strings attached, namely that they come up with a new business model. Well, their new business model was to ask for another bailout. Good riddance to Waggoner who gave us the Hummer.
The comparison to Putin and Chavez is apples and oranges. Chavez just nationalizes what he wants....that is not happening here. We are allowing business people who, in a real capitalist model would bear the risk of failure, and sparing them that risk because their failure could destroy the economy. When you remove the risk, you necessarily reduce the reward.
As for keeping the bankers, they have to show more accountability for what they did with the money, and I think the Wagoner firing is a warning shot to them....they are next.
"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"
I heard an interesting comment on television this morning. It had to do with Reagan firing the Air Traffic Controllers. No one thought he would dare do it, just like no one thought Obama would fire Waggoner. The effect it had with Reagan, and by analogy to Obama is that it scared the beejesus out of anyone who thought he or she could cros him and get away with it.
Obama, unlike Carter and like Reagan, has demonstrated, agree or disagree that he has a pair of steel cojones.
"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"
No Lilo, you're wrong. Below is a quote from the very article for which you provided a link above:
"The government is still bound to pour more money into A.I.G. if it’s needed, but it still has only indirect control of the company to which it has extended credit and a potential $183 billion in bailout money." Obviously, indirect control is not ownership. As the article points out and as I pointed out in my previous post, the Fed secured its line of credit extension to AIG through a pledge of voting shares so that it could force a sale of company assets if AIG defaulted on loan repayment.
AIG's liabilities are those that accrue to insurance contractual obligations that it entered into and which it is compelled to satisfy or face court claims from the insured. GM's loan requirements are to pay operating expenes assocaietd with producing vehicles m,ainly.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
Re: Random obama Whoring
[Re: olivant]
#536358 04/03/0907:31 PM04/03/0907:31 PM
I don't see that I am wrong Olivant. Ownership and indirect control are certainly not mutually exclusive. It's how a great many publicly traded companies are run. The government owns 80% of AIG.
From the same article
"Three trustees have virtually absolute discretion to run A.I.G. The trust is unbreakable, and the government has no control over the trustees’ actions, so long as their decisions are not contrary to the interests of the government." "In March, the government began to cordon off A.I.G.’s subsidiaries. Its two main life insurance companies were placed into special-purpose vehicles so the subsidiaries could be seized separately by the government if A.I.G. went into bankruptcy."
In short, AIG is indeed owned by the government. It's a hands off ownership, which is causing further problems IMO. AIG is only "alive" now through the good graces of the Fed and the Treasury.
Here's an interesting piece (not about AIG per se but banks in general) by the economist Joseph Stiglitz, who thinks that the combination of ownership and lack of control is a serious problem for the American taxpayer.
Again, the Administration has not as of yet anyway suggested that AIG or other financial/insurance companies need to "reopen" contracts or cut salaries or reduce benefits. Quite the opposite. Geithner's latest plan is a new subsidy to the same companies which helped cause many of these problems.
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Winter is Coming Now this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
[quote=olivant]If Chavez or Putin were forcing out company heads and directing companies to merge , we would be reading numerous editorials in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc about the dangers of political control of private companies.
I don't think the President has many good choices to make here. But my major point in all of this is that he (and the Democrats) are taking on a major political risk by getting involved in decision making in the auto industry, a role they've generally avoided in the financial industry.
The double standard is obvious and it stinks. If things turn around by 2010 or 2012, assuming there IS still anyone left working in Michigan, this will mostly be forgiven by Michigan Obama voters. If things haven't rebounded by then and the President is perceived as the man who broke the UAW and wiped out GM/Chrysler while coddling "East Coast bankers" there will be some political consequences.
GM, AIG and the others ASKED for bailout money, and in GM's case there were strings attached, namely that they come up with a new business model. Well, their new business model was to ask for another bailout. Good riddance to Waggoner who gave us the Hummer.
The comparison to Putin and Chavez is apples and oranges. Chavez just nationalizes what he wants....that is not happening here. We are allowing business people who, in a real capitalist model would bear the risk of failure, and sparing them that risk because their failure could destroy the economy. When you remove the risk, you necessarily reduce the reward.
As for keeping the bankers, they have to show more accountability for what they did with the money, and I think the Wagoner firing is a warning shot to them....they are next.
Exactly, in the auto industry's case there were quite a number of strings attached. Why was this? Where was the plan presented to the government by the financial industry? There wasn't one. The finance guys knew they would get the money no matter what.
There weren't the same sort of conditions in the financial industry's case. This is despite the fact that the bailouts for the financial industry have been of orders of magnitude greater than those requested by the auto industry. It is also despite the fact that the government has some responsibility for the current auto crisis through bad trade policies, lack of national health care, bad emissions policies etc. I do believe that GM bears most of the blame though. (I work for a competitor)
The US is effectively printing money (or borrowing it from China) to give to banks to ensure that their ownership is overpaid for assets which are trash. Some of these banks aren't even American.
Geithner's new plan, if adopted , would increase the subsidy paid to the banks and financial institutions. It is effectively as if the US started paying GM $50,000 for each vehicle it couldn't sell.
But there is no way that GM and Chrysler can suddenly become profitable in 30 or 60 days. The question that I want to know is why should a UAW retiree who put 30-40 years in at the plant lose his or her pension or health coverage because the the President wants to play hardball with an industry that is clearly not on his favored list. Why is it the working man who's always getting it in the neck?
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Winter is Coming Now this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
I to am watching news coverage from Obama's trip. Seems to be going well. Of course the media is desperately trying to point out any "slip-ups." This morning on MSN it's how Michelle supposedly touched the Queen, which is a no-no????? (I don't know anything about these things.
On the other hand, it was reported that Gordon Brown was (as they reported) grinning ear to ear, because he's not the most popular PM in the UK and was happy to be associated with such a popular American President.
Anyway, I hope the best and pray that there are some accomplishments, agreements and compromises during this trip to not only help my country, but all the countries, and also to restore respect from other countries as well.
TIS
I thought the trip was a great success, if at the least because the President didn't make any obvious public embarrasing gaffes, and more than that, actually looked like he belonged on the world stage. Very young, inexperienced, and yet those NATO and G20 summits, the whole atmosphere revolved around him...not Sarkozy, not Merkel, not fucking Brown, but USA mother fucker.
I mean its always nice to see thousands of American flags in a European capital or two waving, and not being burned.
No, he didn't get the Afghani troop commitments or stimulus $$$ that he wanted, but his Administration is banking on the idea that this whole trip endeavor is an investment, to which he will eventually down the road get what he wants. He won't simply get pissy, take the ball and go home like Dubya.
As for Turkey, we must understand that Administration has the goal of reproaching/remending ties with that NATO ally. Later the same with Syria, and hopefully if stabilized again, Afghanistan.
The ultimate point is to isolate Iran within the region, and draw increasing pressure for them to drop their nuclear ambitions. Also, Turkey would help secure North Iraq. Notice that the President openly pushed for the European Union to induct Turkey. There is...a plan.
"In Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that can be casual but can also be insidious. Let me say this as clearly as I can: America is changing. But it cannot be America alone that changes."
Although the President may have failed in getting European troops committed to Afghanistan and European help to get tougher on Iran, I do think that he may have been somewhat successful in laying the groundwork for the future. Hopefully as time goes on he'll be able to build upon that groundwork that he has laid out and eventually get the Europeans to come along with us in these things that we have to do.
Don Cardi
Five - ten years from now, they're gonna wish there was American Cosa Nostra. Five - ten years from now, they're gonna miss John Gotti.
Underboss
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,323 Happy Valley
Originally Posted By: ronnierocketAGO
I thought the trip was a great success, if at the least because the President didn't make any obvious public embarrasing gaffes, and more than that, actually looked like he belonged on the world stage.
Good to see that Obamamania is alive and well.
What about him bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia? That was definitely an obvious gaffe that doesn't make him look like he belongs on the world stage. Sure, you'll say it was no big deal, but the White House thought it was serious enough to come out and lie about it. The man demeans the office every chance he gets.
LMFAO at some of the militarist imperialism in this thread.
...dot com bold typeface rhetoric. You go clickety click and get your head split. 'The hell you look like on a message board Discussing whether or not the Brother is hardcore?
I thought the trip was a great success, if at the least because the President didn't make any obvious public embarrasing gaffes, and more than that, actually looked like he belonged on the world stage.
Good to see that Obamamania is alive and well.
What about him bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia? That was definitely an obvious gaffe that doesn't make him look like he belongs on the world stage. Sure, you'll say it was no big deal, but the White House thought it was serious enough to come out and lie about it. The man demeans the office every chance he gets.
No, embarrassing (gaffes)is when you massage the German Chancellor's shoulders OR when you can't find your way out of a room OR dare I say, go to war with the wrong country. Don't get me started as the former leader's fuck-ups as that could have it's own thread. This President on the world stage is such a dream after the last eight years. All and all, he did extremely well. I'm very proud of him.
TIS
Last edited by The Italian Stallionette; 04/09/0908:07 AM.
"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind. War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." JFK
Underboss
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,323 Happy Valley
What exactly was done extremely well? Nothing of benefit to the US was accomplished. This was just a publicity tour with Obama trying to promote himself, trying to be "liked". To gain Europe's favor, he went as far as talking down America in France when he said "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
The president speaking bad of America in another country is appalling to me.
Obama bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is not just embarrassing, it's a disgrace. Bowing to a foreign head of state is something that no American should do, let alone the president. Bowing is a sign of weakness that only the king's subjects are required to do. The fact that is was the king of Saudi Arabia he bowed to, one of the most powerful Muslims in the world, sets a dangerous precedent. No US President has ever bowed to royalty, but since it's Obama trying desperately to be liked, he gets a pass.
"The Dewey Decimal System... What a scam that was!"
Obama bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is not just embarrassing, it's a disgrace. Bowing to a foreign head of state is something that no American should do, let alone the president. Bowing is a sign of weakness that only the king's subjects are required to do.
On this I must agree. No leader of any country should ever bow down to the leader of another country. To bow down to someone signifies that one is subservient to the person that they are bowing down to. Bowing down is also a sign of submission.
The Hebrew translation of the word worship means to Bow Down.
Bowing down before a King says that he is greater than you are. Historicaly it also siginifies that your life is now in the hands of the person that you were bowing down to. That you are now under his power because with your face to the ground you cannot attack and cannot defend yourself.
I have to agree with Freddie on this. Our President had absolutely no business bowing down to the leader of another country.
Don Cardi
Five - ten years from now, they're gonna wish there was American Cosa Nostra. Five - ten years from now, they're gonna miss John Gotti.
Re: Random obama Whoring
[Re: Don Cardi]
#536997 04/09/0904:47 PM04/09/0904:47 PM
The president speaking bad of America in another country is appalling to me.
Progress in America - in the Western World - might begin with self-criticism on an everyday scale, not just of those in charge but of the cultural structures in place that allow the blind nationalism and pride (based on territorialism) to continue to flourish.
What the President says in another country of his own isn't inherently appalling; that's absurd.
Again, the interpretation of that bowing gesture is very - and worringly - militarist imperialist.
Death to all jingoism!
...dot com bold typeface rhetoric. You go clickety click and get your head split. 'The hell you look like on a message board Discussing whether or not the Brother is hardcore?
I thought the trip was a great success, if at the least because the President didn't make any obvious public embarrasing gaffes, and more than that, actually looked like he belonged on the world stage.
Good to see that Obamamania is alive and well.
What about him bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia? That was definitely an obvious gaffe that doesn't make him look like he belongs on the world stage. Sure, you'll say it was no big deal, but the White House thought it was serious enough to come out and lie about it. The man demeans the office every chance he gets.
What exactly was done extremely well? Nothing of benefit to the US was accomplished.
Nothing? Nothing?
Be careful with your wording. Still want to say nothing?
Originally Posted By: Freddie C.
This was just a publicity tour with Obama trying to promote himself, trying to be "liked".
Trying? I thought McCain made a criticism last summer of how Europe loved him? How can someone try to get others to like him if they already do?
You confuse me.
Originally Posted By: Freddie C.
To gain Europe's favor, he went as far as talking down America in France when he said "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."
You also forgot to copy and paste him slamming European's snobbish tendency at times at blaming everything on America (like the current economic downturn, which they played a big part in.), which DC posted above.
And last I checked, DC is no "Obamaniac" like I am.
Originally Posted By: Freddie C.
The president speaking bad of America in another country is appalling to me.
Would you prefer him to do this in Tennessee?
Since you know, Pennsylvania aint the Heartland, thus it aint America, at least that was the impression I got when I was a Republican.
Originally Posted By: Freddie C.
Obama bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is not just embarrassing, it's a disgrace.
All Hail King Oil!
Originally Posted By: Freddie C.
Bowing to a foreign head of state is something that no American should do, let alone the president.
Reagan bowed to the Emperor of Japan when he visited the White House in the 1980s. You know, the same "Emperor" that was ruler of Japan from the expansionist and WW2 years?
When in Rome...(Need help finishing this line?)
Originally Posted By: Freddie C.
Bowing is a sign of weakness that only the king's subjects are required to do. The fact that is was the king of Saudi Arabia he bowed to, one of the most powerful Muslims in the world, sets a dangerous precedent. No US President has ever bowed to royalty, but since it's Obama trying desperately to be liked, he gets a pass.
I'm surprised you aren't pissed about that no-nukes speech.
I haven't seen the gesture, but bowing before a king is about as un-American as it gets and would annoy Washington, Madison, Franklin and Jefferson.
This is not out of arrogance, but out of respect for the principles of equality upon which the country was founded. Why shouldn't Obama bow before a king? Because he himselfwould never be permitted to achieve such a title, and here he grew up in a biracial home, raised by a single mom of modest means, and rose to the ultimate position of leadership because of principles of equality.
So (in my best Moe Green voice) "Me Bow before the Saudi king?! No! He bows before me.
Good one
lol
I believed you and I sent it to Frank(Son-in-law next month) he loves Nascar. Good job though.
This morning on MSN it's how Michelle supposedly touched the Queen, which is a no-no????? (I don't know anything about these things.
