O'bowma

[JohnnyD]

Right. Because when an American is in the room, he should be the most respected person regardless of who's country it is.

This prideful arrogance promoted by Bush is why the world hates Americans. Time for you guys to get off your pedestal and learn some humility.

And this statement is false:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

third world chump?
NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER BOWED TO ROYALTY EVER!

as US Presidents have bowed to the British Royalty before.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

And this statement is false:

as US Presidents have bowed to the British Royalty before.

Prove it. And dont show me the picture fo Bush lowering his head while a medal is placed around his neck.
The pride and arrogance is not Bush, it has been in place for ALL Presidents. Its called holding a positon of authority.

[Cool Beans]

Damn it,, Bush did bow to the Saudi King, I looked it up, trying to prove that JohnnyD was full of crap, but in this case he is correct.



had you going there huh, thought I slipped and hit my head and became a liberal.... nope.

read on,

Bush didn't bow as in servitude, he is lowering his head to receive a medal from the Saudi King.
Here's the actual video, that is so often taken out of context to say Bush bowed to him. OUR PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BOW TO ANYONE.
http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesour...480&height=324

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

The pride and arrogance is not Bush, it has been in place for ALL Presidents. Its called holding a positon of authority.

This is perhaps the dumbest thing ever said.

As for this thread. I've listed to most of Obama's recent speeches and don't have any issue with the message.

He's not running around begging for forgiveness. He is, quite artfully, stating that you disliked Bush, not America, and that you have responsibility of your own.

Much of what he's said has been said by US Presidents before, including Ronald Reagan.

Some of you are sounding more and more like the wingnut version of Moveon.org every day.

-spence

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

He's not running around begging for forgiveness. He is, quite artfully, stating that you disliked Bush, not America, and that you have responsibility of your own.-spence

I wonder how much repsect all the other world leaders have for O'Bama now that they listened to him in so many eloquent speeches throw his predecessor under the bus in all those speeches. You wouldn't hear Sarkozy do that, or Blair, or any of thier other contemporaries. After listening to O'Bama throw Bush under the bus I doubt any of the other heads of state respect him any more that they respected Bush. Bush might have been arrogant, but O'Bama is childish and naive. Look at North Korea, O'Bama is just hours away from giving a speech about weapons and N. Korea fires off the big missile. Look at those pirates holding the boat captain.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Look at those pirates holding the boat captain.

Have you lost your mind?

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Bush might have been arrogant, but O'Bama is childish and naive.

These are two descriptions of Obama thrown around a lot by Conservatives, yet they fail to support it or support it with vague detail. Could you please support how he's "childish and naive"?

Keep in mind, according to Webster:

childish
1: of, relating to, or befitting a child or childhood
2: marked by or suggestive of immaturity and lack of poise

naive
1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless , ingenuous
2: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment


Let's leave vague complaints out. I'm curious for concrete examples of him being childish and naive.

[scottw]

Let's leave vague complaints out. I'm curious for concrete examples of him being childish and naive.[/QUOTE]

First...feeling the need to point out in a speech "I am not naive" as he did is a good sign that you are indeed aware that you a percieved as such and probably are...

This one from British author and broadcaster Gerald Warren who refers to our lightwalking president in typical British understatement as "President Pantywaist:"

President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you'd notice.

Barack is not the first New World ingenue to discover that European leaders will load him with praise, struggle sycophantically to be photographed with him and outdo him in Utopian rhetoric. But when it comes to the critical moment of opening their wallets - suddenly it is flag-day in Aberdeen. Okay, put the G20 down to inexperience, beginner's nerves, what you will.
On to Nato and the next big objective: to persuade the same European evasion experts that America, Britain and Canada should no longer bear the brunt of the Afghan struggle virtually unassisted. The Old World sucked through its teeth, said that was asking a lot - but, seeing it was Barack, to whom they could refuse nothing, they would graciously accede to his wishes.

So The One retired triumphant, having secured a massive contribution of 5,000 extra troops - all of them non-combatant, of course - which must really have put the wind up the Taliban, at the prospect of 5,000 more infidel cooks and bottle-washers swarming into the less hazardous regions of Afghanistan.

A guy like Obama could not survive the British press or "Question Time" in the Commons where any MP can ask the PM anything he wants. Our teleprompterless president would freeze like a side of beef in a Kansas City meat locker.

Krauthammer:
"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."


A more fatuous presidential call to arms is hard to conceive. What "strong international response" did Obama muster to North Korea's brazen defiance of a Chapter 7 -- "binding," as it were -- U.N. resolution prohibiting such a launch?


The obligatory emergency Security Council session produced nothing. No sanctions. No resolution. Not even a statement. China and Russia professed to find no violation whatsoever. They would not even permit a U.N. statement that dared express "concern," let alone condemnation.

So much for "violations must be punished." But Obama's naivete went beyond that. His reliance on the UN for any kind of a strong international response makes him out to be a fool as well.

After all, it was Obama, not some envious anti-American leader, who noted with satisfaction that a new financial order is being created today by 20 countries, rather than by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy." And then added: "But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in."



It is passing strange for a world leader to celebrate his own country's decline. A few more such overseas tours, and Obama will have a lot more decline to celebrate

Sarkozy Engages Pirates - Obama Ducks Questions?
Tom Suhadolnik
While four pirates armed with AK47s bobbing in a lifeboat hold a US Navy destroyer at bay, a French commando team storms a sailboat held by pirates and rescues French citizens. The world truly has gone mad.


According to the BBC, President Sarkozy's office released a statement saying a French sailboat, seized Saturday off the coast of Somalia, was the target of a French commando raid Thursday. The French sail boat had four adults and one child on board. According to the release, two pirates and a hostage were killed in the operation and three others taken prisoner. This is the third time in recent memory French commandos have been used to free hostages held by pirates in the region.


Meanwhile in the USA, when asked about an American being held hostage by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden, President Obama refused to answer any questions. Various reports say Obama has delegated the handling of this incident to high level administration officials and military commanders.


Unlike the pirates killed by French commandos, the pirates holding the American seem emboldened. There have been various reports today that allies of the pirates holding the American have requested and receiving backup from other pirates. Several large vessels seized with the last few weeks are heading to the site of a standoff.


The Times of India may have the most succinct description of the standoff between the US Navy and the pirates and its implications.


The Indian Ocean standoff between an $800 million United States Navy destroyer and four pirates bobbing in a lifeboat showed the limits of the world's most power military as it faces a booming pirate economy in a treacherous patch of international waters.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

The Indian Ocean standoff between an $800 million United States Navy destroyer and four pirates bobbing in a lifeboat showed the limits of the world's most power military as it faces a booming pirate economy in a treacherous patch of international waters.

So how do you propose we end it? Storm the lifeboat? he'd be dead before the hatch opened.

The french just did it, and 1/4 of the hostages were killed.

Not storming the lifeboat does not show weakness or the limits of the navy.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

childish
1: of, relating to, or befitting a child or childhood
2: marked by or suggestive of immaturity and lack of poise

naive
1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless , ingenuous
2: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment


Let's leave vague complaints out. I'm curious for concrete examples of him being childish and naive.

Nothing vague at all in what I posted if you listened to any of his speeches. The new admininstration thinks that they can make a perfect world through words and legislation and it wont happen. Thank you for putting up the meanings of those two words I used. It should be more clear to you now.

Spence the Somalians have no respect for us or our might either. I didn't finish the post and hit enter. I was tired and realized what I had done and chose not to edit and go to bed.

I don't think we should storm the lifeboat. Waiting them out will be difficult as well, because the Somalians are used to living on nothing everyday and surviving. We should be closer than several hundred yards. If some of the Somali compatriots choose to join in and bring more hostages the whole situation will be more out of control than what it is.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Spence the Somalians have no respect for us or our might either. I didn't finish the post and hit enter. I was tired and realized what I had done and chose not to edit and go to bed.

So what's the point?

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Nothing vague at all in what I posted if you listened to any of his speeches. The new admininstration thinks that they can make a perfect world through words and legislation and it wont happen. Thank you for putting up the meanings of those two words I used. It should be more clear to you now.

More clear? It's more clear that you just throw out terms like childish and naive and don't really have actual points to support the comments.

"Nothing vague at all in what I posted if you listened to any of his speeches."
This line is exactly my point. Conservatives throw out terms and labels but then beat around the bush when it comes to supporting them.

I don't think you can provide me a single credible reason as to how he's been "childish."