An open question to you guys.

In the UK at least, I've always had the impression that there is something of a Political Divide in US Politics, which rather obviously is between Democrat and Republican sensibilities.

All I would like to know is how pronounced this divide actually is, in your own opinion and experience

Do people tend to veer over to one side, or are most voters central, voting for whomever they feel has the right idea for the next four years?

It seems like the divide is a little exaggerated in the media, especially around election times. I haven't seen that much really entrenched "Red versus Blueing" in my time.

Agreed with Orkeosaurus. The media blows the "red vs blue" thing way out of proportion. We have hardcore Dems and Republicans in my large extended family, and we are quite civil to each other about politics and our opinions, even if we dont agree with each other.

The only thing we get into heated arguments about is when we play Settlers of Catan, or, heaven forbid, Risk. Then you will see some anger and possibly fist fights.

Cheers

Do you know many 'floating' voters, or do people tend to have a preference which is changed occasionally?

Main reason I ask is that the UK has less of a Political Divide, with a great many voters deciding who to vote for on an election to election basis, and I don't entirely buy the 'wide divide' about the US.

Its not that its a wide divide, its just that its given an undue amount of attention. Its a tiny thing that a lot of agencies blow out of proportion.

Look at the last election.There were a lot republicans that voted for Obama and a lot of democrats that voted for McCain. Yes, a lot of people voted with their own particular party, but more I think voted on their conscience and personal opinion.

I'd vote Dem if a Dem ran that wasn't trying to take away the rights I feel I should have or mess with them. So far their haven't been any so I vote Republican every election, have since I was 18.

An aside question for yourself Fateweaver, do you think there would ever be a time when you felt the Republicans were way off tack, and that voting Democrat, even though they wanted to change something you hold dear, would be the lesser of two evils?

Same for everyone actually.

As ever, not going anywhere in particular with this, just exploring.

The Divide can be seen in some states more than other. America has a don't ask don't tell belief about politics and sex. The divide is widened why The fact most Americans hink that comprimise is the first step on the high way to hell. It's no different than the East cosst West coast, of the 90's or the northen yankees vs southen rebels. The divide get very deep depending on where you live.

Mad Doc Grotsnik: I voted for Charlie Crist of Florida because of his Moderate views and stance on education. Sadly enough his moderate views have in the sites of Rush and Palin. Obama's change in the way the G.I bill works is the greatest thing ever. (my wife and kids share my G.I bill for shooling now) Was supported By Crist. A few days after that, attacks on his sexuality begain.

Jumbled rant: It depends on a lot of factors imo. Have to consider that some of us may not be around politically minded folk or in a context where such discussions arise. I do agree that a good chunk of people have the common decency to keep the usually taboo topic of politics to themselves but like always the loud ones are the ones that get attention.

Living in the state that spawned Bush Jr. that also had him as a governor; its plenty pro Bush/red/GOP. If they're not outspoken about it you'll find it on their bumper stickers, etc. The current governor is crazy enough to say things like Texas should secede out of the union (translation: leave the USA) because of Obama's administration.

Everyday life when its not time for reelections or there hasn't been some kind of event like a terrorist attack; then everyday people keep politics to themselves.

For politicians and political activists its a largely polarized world fueled by unending media spins, passion, ignorance, hate, and $$$. Those whose livelihoods rely a lot on the political world do what they can to make sure their interests are sought after. You see this when Republicans or Democrats vote on a bill solely to support or deny eachother.

I'd say 70% of the people I know [who vote regularly] have a loyal straight party vote.

In my experience independents often can't be bothered to vote on a regular basis. When they do vote they will vote very pragmatically, most often with their wallet or for changing the system (as they only bother to vote when things are bad).


I would agree that differences are exaggerated between the ideologies. I can't think of anyone ever losing a friend or getting riled up because they found out someone was in the 'wrong' party.

So lots of loyal party people, minority who vote regularly but from the center, and not a few who can't be bothered normally who will vote pragmatically if sufficiently dissatisfied with the system.

Texas here, YMMV.

If Repubs were ever way out of wack I'd probably vote independent or not vote at all.

I believe in voting but if ever comes a time I don't want any candidate I won't vote (it also means I won't bitch about who is running the country).

That's a peeve of mine. If you don't vote you have no right to bitch IMO.

I don't really consider myself affiliated with any party, but I find I vote Republican more often than not because their views are closest to mine.
My parents were staunch Democrats, so we'd get into some lively discussions about party views and whatnot, but when it came down to it, my parents were more Republican than most Republicans.

Fateweaver wrote:I'd vote Dem if a Dem ran that wasn't trying to take away the rights I feel I should have or mess with them. So far their haven't been any so I vote Republican every election, have since I was 18.

Then why didn't you vote for Obama? He didn't run on an anti-gun platform, or really anything associated with rights at all.

I suspect what you really mean is that you wouldn't vote for a Democrat under any conditions.


As for me: Its no secret that I lean towards the liberal end, though I'm more of a moderate than my argumentation style tends to indicate. In general I will defend the state from criticism I feel to be illegitimate, regardless of the political leaning of the current administration. At the moment that means I spend a lot of time defending liberal policies, but I spent almost as much time defending the Iraq War when Bush was in office.

In terms of voting, I will vote for whoever I feel to be the better candidate. Generally I base this on a judgment with respect to his position on issues, as well as the likely makeup of his cabinet.

I do think there is a degree of branding in American politics. Many people simply trust one party more than the other, and are thus reticent to vote for the unfavored son. Obviously there are certain degree to this. On one end you have people like Fateweaver who will never vote Democrat, and on the other you have people who simply feel uneasy about doing so.

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I'd vote Dem if a Dem ran that wasn't trying to take away the rights I feel I should have or mess with them. So far their haven't been any so I vote Republican every election, have since I was 18.

Then why didn't you vote for Obama? He didn't run on an anti-gun platform, or really anything associated with rights at all.

I suspect what you really mean is that you wouldn't vote for a Democrat under any conditions.


As for me: Its no secret that I lean towards the liberal end, though I'm more of a moderate than my argumentation style tends to indicate. In general I will defend the state from criticism I feel to be illegitimate, regardless of the political leaning of the current administration. At the moment that means I spend a lot of time defending liberal policies, but I spent almost as much time defending the Iraq War when Bush was in office.

In terms of voting, I will vote for whoever I feel to be the better candidate. Generally I base this on a judgment with respect to his position on issues, as well as the likely makeup of his cabinet.

I do think there is a degree of branding in American politics. Many people simply trust one party more than the other, and are thus reticent to vote for the unfavored son. Obviously there are certain degree to this. On one end you have people like Fateweaver who will never vote Democrat, and on the other you have people who simply feel uneasy about doing so.

He has 3 years left. Give it time dogma. No liberal that's ever been president hasn't tried to tighten gun laws. He has 3 years left (unless circumstances end it early) so I have a feeling it'll happen. I also oppose the welfare system, the very LOOSE immigration laws and anything else the dems think helps this country so much so no matter what you think dogma I don't vote against Democrats (or any other party candidate who wants to try to deny me my 2nd amendment rights) due to possibly losing my guns (though that is a main issue with my voting choices). Also being an NRA member does skew my view of Dems somewhat but NRA aren't necessarily anti-liberal, just anti-stupid and anti-take-away-our-rights.

I'm not loyal to either party. I generally vote for Democrats as I feel they usually do less damage.

I'm convinced there's a political divide based on party politics rather than results. I keep hearing <party> this or that hissed with venom that borders on genuine animosity rather than competition. Being a Cryptoanarchofaschist (Yeah there's a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Hush.) I keep reading what both parties are doing and it :
A) Sounds suspiciously the same.
B) Sounds reactionary rather than carefully considered.

It seems to me that most voters are more of lazy centrists - moderate except when the other guy is moderate because that would be bad.

The divide is incredibly strong when the issues are incredibly divisive. It is weak and meaningless when they aren't. Local politics don't always fall down one of two ways, and when the spotlight isn't on representatives falling in line with their party they can cross the boundry. That said its getting worse every day thanks to the irresponsibility of the news media; polarizing everything it can for a quick buck.

I don't vote against Democrats (or any other party candidate who wants to try to deny me my 2nd amendment rights

..just out of interest how highly does this right rank compared to other policies/theories a political party or individual might express in terms of how it would affect your voting ?

For example, and I appreciate this is a somewhat laboured example, but if the Republicans had proposed "policy X" that you dislike whilst the Democrats had said they will "ensure gun ownership rights through process y" , would that be more or less of a "swing" issue for you -- and other posters-- than ... other policies : eg ; economic policy, foreign relations, welfare reform, etc etc.

basically how high up your agenda/list of concerns ( -- used here in the general sense, not aimed at any individual I hasten to add) are gun/firearm issues compared to other factors ?

I think there is a strong divide between the right and left. We all knew that the right would lose the election last year so that masked the divide. The young people were the swing vote between Hillary and Obama.

G

Fateweaver wrote:
He has 3 years left. Give it time dogma. No liberal that's ever been president hasn't tried to tighten gun laws.

You mean besides Truman, Carter, and Kennedy?

Fateweaver wrote:
I also oppose the welfare system, the very LOOSE immigration laws and anything else the dems think helps this country so much so no matter what you think dogma I don't vote against Democrats (or any other party candidate who wants to try to deny me my 2nd amendment rights) due to possibly losing my guns (though that is a main issue with my voting choices).

I really don't understand how you can construe your position as being unaffiliated when all of the issues you value, and the positions you have with respect to them, fall very clearly on one side of the partisan divide. That's really all political parties are you know, collections of issues and positions; embodied by people. Plus, there's that whole anti-Obama thing you have going on. If that isn't simple disgust with respect to the Democratic Party manifestly directed against one person, then it must be something else a lot less justifiable.

Also, calling our immigration laws loose is very much like doing the same with respect to firearm regulation.

Fateweaver wrote:
Also being an NRA member does skew my view of Dems somewhat but NRA aren't necessarily anti-liberal, just anti-stupid and anti-take-away-our-rights.

I don't think the NRA is anti-stupid, they've done some very stupid things in their time, mostly dealing with hyperbole (cold dead fingers?).

Also being an NRA member does skew my view of Dems somewhat but NRA aren't necessarily anti-liberal, just anti-stupid and anti-take-away-our-rights.

Anti-take-away-our-rights. I'll remember that the next time we're talking about illegal extradition, offshore prisons, and the economy. It'll provide some good ammo.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:An open question to you guys.

In the UK at least, I've always had the impression that there is something of a Political Divide in US Politics, which rather obviously is between Democrat and Republican sensibilities.

All I would like to know is how pronounced this divide actually is, in your own opinion and experience

Do people tend to veer over to one side, or are most voters central, voting for whomever they feel has the right idea for the next four years?

Democrats me off, almost as much as Republicans. Neither of them will stay off my lawn.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I'd vote Dem if a Dem ran that wasn't trying to take away the rights I feel I should have or mess with them. So far their haven't been any so I vote Republican every election, have since I was 18.

Then why didn't you vote for Obama? He didn't run on an anti-gun platform, or really anything associated with rights at all.

Bull it. His incredibly small record did. Plus he put in "no controlling legal authority" Holder who immediately started advocating for such.

What Frazz said. So far he hasn't done anything himself as President to feth with our 2nd amendment rights but he voted to pass and did pass some measures pre-Overlord.

He did it before, he will try again.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/67833-holder-dials-back-commitment-to-assault-weapons-ban

Yeah, just read that.

Any "uniforms" come for my MG-42 or AR I'll go down in a blaze of glory (cue Bon Jovi).

You SOB! I had to work once in Target in the music section. They played that song over and over and over and over and over and over. I think its when I first envisioned walking resolutely forward with a Thommy Gun chugging away... Now you have that song in my head again. I guess its time to lock n load.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091116/pl_afp/japanusdiplomacyasiaobama

Hmm, really? Bowing to another foreign leader. Yikes. Since when does our Overlord bow to another countries Overlord.

Maybe Obama was just making sure his shoes were polished correctly ( I hope anyway).

"I swear. It says Mother. Here (bows) look and you can see the tattoo."

It was a crappy bow.

The Japanese have invented a new verb -- 'obamu' --meaning to persevere with optimism, ignoring all obstacles.

One has to remember just how fething big and how fething diverse the US is before you try to jam us into 2 parties...

Michigan Repubs are much much different from Texas Repubs...

Virginia Dems are much much different than California Dems.


Trying to shoehorn that many views into 2 categories is crazy. Yet we do it anyways.

Fateweaver wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091116/pl_afp/japanusdiplomacyasiaobama

Hmm, really? Bowing to another foreign leader. Yikes. Since when does our Overlord bow to another countries Overlord.

Maybe Obama was just making sure his shoes were polished correctly ( I hope anyway).

It's called showing humility, which is important if you wish to work well together with others matey.

BUT! Back on topic (because that's another Topic which whilst I would gladly discuss with Fateweaver over PM, really isn't for Dakka).

R3con, those are the very reasons I started this thread. I don't trust the media as far as I can throw them, so I thought I'd seek out what I can more reasonably assume are genuine opinions (only reasonably assume, as you could all be from three doors down yanking my chain!)

Humility to who exactly? US Presidents don't bow. Actually most leaders of sovereign nations don't bow in that context.

If it's polite in that Society, you bow.

Imagine the furore if someone refused to shake a Western Leaders hand.

But as I said, this is something for PMs and not the main boards. And just before I go, I would like to point out that I wasn't suggesting American Arrogance, or a lack of Humility etc. Just saying that bowing shows it's presence.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:If it's polite in that Society, you bow.

Imagine the furore if someone refused to shake a Western Leaders hand.

But as I said, this is something for PMs and not the main boards. And just before I go, I would like to point out that I wasn't suggesting American Arrogance, or a lack of Humility etc. Just saying that bowing shows it's presence.

1. Thats a crappy humble bow. No way. At best it should be as equals except Obama has, you know, done something. The Emperor of Japan was born and we permitted his family to remain in power. He ain't done jack squat and is the head of nothing.
2. US Presidents by custom don't bow, they shake hands.

So he's attempting a reboot of the great US Franchise, which to the rest of the world, after Bush Jnr, is very welcome.

I'll take this to PMs now if you don't mind.

When in Rome, etc.

Bowing is the equivalent of shaking hands in Japan. More so, in fact. You can use a bow of one kind or another in almost any social situation.

It was a crappy bow though. I blame the government run State Department for failing to instruct him properly.

Mind you the USA is not so insecure that a single crappy bow should foretell fire, brimstone, plagues of frogs and so on.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:So he's attempting a reboot of the great US Franchise, which to the rest of the world, after Bush Jnr, is very welcome.

I'll take this to PMs now if you don't mind.

Uh, its not a matter or "rebooting the great US franchise" it is a matter of our long held beliefs in equality and human rights. The reason no president has ever bowed, until Obama, to a foreign monarch is because that would signify superiority on the monarch's part. I mean Thomas Jefferson greeted a British Aristocrat, who was the ambassador to the US, in his bathrobe and slippers! And I would also like to note that President Obama has bowed only to male sovereigns, as he was very disrespectful toward QEII. I smell a bit of a double standard....

Kilkrazy wrote:When in Rome, etc.

Bowing is the equivalent of shaking hands in Japan. More so, in fact. You can use a bow of one kind or another in almost any social situation.

It was a crappy bow though. I blame the government run State Department for failing to instruct him properly.

Mind you the USA is not so insecure that a single crappy bow should foretell fire, brimstone, plagues of frogs and so on.

The Embassy advised a handshake not a bow, as it goes against the US presidential tradition. But yeah it looked so bad as to be embarrassing.
Having said that I again restate I don't care, other than thinking lots of jokes about it. You can't top Bush Sr. puking on heads of state. You just can't upstage that act.

The whole 'not bowing' thing seems a bit outdated and a huge slap in the face to cultural anthropology. It can also be interpreted as being very ethnocentric especially if those leaders are willing to shake hands; bowing in many cultures is the equivalent of a handshake or showing respect.

Its very understandable why American protocol didn't respect bowing due to the whole anti-royalty thing this country was founded on but imo its too outdated and only creates negative energy with nations we instead want a positive flow from.

Another Japanese verb is 'bushu suru' which means to unexpectedly vomit on your host at a formal dinner.

They should clink glasses, and say "cheers". Everyone likes doing that.

Kilkrazy wrote:Another Japanese verb is 'bushu suru' which means to unexpectedly vomit on your host at a formal dinner.

He was served broccoli. He gave the whole world warning the he was President of the United States and he didn't have to eat broccoli. You WILL respect his athorita!

Frazzled wrote:
Bull it. His incredibly small record did. Plus he put in "no controlling legal authority" Holder who immediately started advocating for such.

What? Having a record involving firearm regulation is not the same thing as running on an anti-gun platform.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Bull it. His incredibly small record did. Plus he put in "no controlling legal authority" Holder who immediately started advocating for such.

What? Having a record involving firearm regulation is not the same thing as running on an anti-gun platform.

It can be. In his case it is. Its one of the few things he did have a record on.

Still a crappy bow and if Obama had a pair he would have shaken hands like every other President before him would have.

I think the great and powerful "O" is trying to play nice with the rest of the world to erase the hatred of the US while Bush Jr. was in office.

A polite bow is like a 30 degree bend, not a "OMG look at all those tiny little fleas at your feet Mr. Emporer sir". That bow is more a bow of submission.

To answer the OP's question, US politics historically have very little seperating the parties. The difference between Democrat and Republican are quite minimal compared to Conservative and Labour. The fact that a lot of issues have swapped from one party to the other over time shows how slight the differences are.

But US politics has changed somewhat and there is increasing party identification. A lot of it comes from professional talking heads, who brand themselves as conservative or liberal and then stick very closely to those issues. The audience in turn comes to think of themselves as conservative or liberal. There's also been the development of a myth of a culture war, where a set of values is under insidious attack by a vaguely drawn enemy - it's quite incoherent but some people want to get scared about the other political faction so they buy into it.

A lot of it comes from the way US politics works. In most other places in the world you know your own loyalists will turn up to vote for you, so the primary drive is to appeal to moderates. But the US has very low attendances at election and as a result the primary election strategy is to get your own voters into the booth, and this is done by making yourself very distinct from your opponent, and by villifying your opponent.

Over time this has steadily led to an increasingly fractionalised political scene. This may be a serious problem, as the US system is built around compromise and needs bi-partisanship to operate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:He has 3 years left. Give it time dogma. No liberal that's ever been president hasn't tried to tighten gun laws. He has 3 years left (unless circumstances end it early) so I have a feeling it'll happen.

So you'll vote for a Democrat that won't take away your guns, but you assume that any liberal that runs for office will attempt to take away your guns, whether it's part of his platform or not.

So you'll never vote for a Democract you deem a liberal... Exactly how many Democrats would you consider non-liberal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:US Presidents by custom don't bow, they shake hands.

No, they hold hands.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:An open question to you guys.

In the UK at least, I've always had the impression that there is something of a Political Divide in US Politics, which rather obviously is between Democrat and Republican sensibilities.

All I would like to know is how pronounced this divide actually is, in your own opinion and experience

Do people tend to veer over to one side, or are most voters central, voting for whomever they feel has the right idea for the next four years?

Most people in hig school start to develop their own opinions etc, but keep them secret from parents who disaggre.

Not that voting makes any difference.

Cane wrote:The whole 'not bowing' thing seems a bit outdated and a huge slap in the face to cultural anthropology. It can also be interpreted as being very ethnocentric especially if those leaders are willing to shake hands; bowing in many cultures is the equivalent of a handshake or showing respect.

Its very understandable why American protocol didn't respect bowing due to the whole anti-royalty thing this country was founded on but imo its too outdated and only creates negative energy with nations we instead want a positive flow from.

America bends knee to no man, and neither should it's leader. (I know this wasn't a bending of the knee, but the principal is the same.) I don't think it creates negative energy at all, unless they're trying to find something to be negative about in the first place. In that case the President could offend just as easily by using the wrong spoon.

Lordhat wrote:...unless they're trying to find something to be negative about in the first place. In that case the President could offend just as easily by using the wrong spoon.

Do you think that accurately describes people who are huffing and puffing over the President bowing?

sebster wrote:

Lordhat wrote:...unless they're trying to find something to be negative about in the first place. In that case the President could offend just as easily by using the wrong spoon.

Do you think that accurately describes people who are huffing and puffing over the President bowing?

No...

Yes.

If he didn't bow he's an ignoramus for not showing respect, if he didn't accept the nobel prize he'd have been insulting all those who'd received one before.

He has not led your country into 10 trillion debt with China. He has not committed your country to two wars at once, one of which contravenes international law.

He has instead committed himself to pulling the Western World out of the financial gak it's in, to pulling out of Iraq with a minimum of cluster feth and to resolving Afghanistan as best he can, to bringing about a reform to bring healthcare to all. And you people scrape to find the slightest thing to try and hang the guy.

Frankly observing the Republicans, who seem to have fallen prey to their most extremist elements, if they continue touting people like Palin as a potential president, may they remain out in the cold for a very long time.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yes.

Wrong

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If he didn't bow he's an ignoramus for not showing respect,

Wrong again, you can show respect as an equal and not denote inferiority. It is a matter of symbolism and respect

MeanGreenStompa wrote:if he didn't accept the nobel prize he'd have been insulting all those who'd received one before.

Or he could have declined it and let someone who actually deserved it take it. There is a long, long list of people who deserve it ahead of him

MeanGreenStompa wrote:He has not led your country into 10 trillion debt with China.

To say he hasn't contributed a significant amount to that debt is ludicrous. He voted yes on the $600 billion bank bailout, and pushed for the nearly $1 trillion dollar stimulus package. And he voted for most of the government spending bills since 2004. So yes, he does have a finger in this pie

MeanGreenStompa wrote:He has not committed your country to two wars at once, one of which contravenes international law.

But he does bomb countries that are not involved like Pakistan, and is indecisive on Afghanistan, and decided to follow policy that the Bush Administration laid down. And no, neither of the wars violate international law, not that I support them mind you...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:He has instead committed himself to pulling the Western World out of the financial gak it's in

By spending our way out of debt, with borrowed money...not the best logic I think

MeanGreenStompa wrote:to bringing about a reform to bring healthcare to all.

Just not the health care reform that most Americans want

MeanGreenStompa wrote:And you people scrape to find the slightest thing to try and hang the guy.

He should get the small things right if he wants to take on the big ones....

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Frankly observing the Republicans, who seem to have fallen prey to their most extremist elements, if they continue touting people like Palin as a potential president, may they remain out in the cold for a very long time.

I don't know any Republicans, other then the women, who want Sarah Palin as the candidate in 2012. Almost all of them are either rooting for Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Or he could have declined it and let someone who actually deserved it take it. There is a long, long list of people who deserve it ahead of him

No there aren't, because it isn't an award which is given in that fashion. The Peace Prize is presented to whomever the Nobel committee feels is deserving, where desert is measured according to an exceptionally broad criterion.

Complaining about who won the Peace Prize is very much like complaining about who won Best Picture.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
But he does bomb countries that are not involved like Pakistan,

Pakistan is involved; pretending otherwise is foolish.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
and is indecisive on Afghanistan, and decided to follow policy that the Bush Administration laid down.

It was fairly sound policy to begin with; though it will inevitably turn the conflict into a quagmire. But that was something that should have been considered before invasion. The desire for catharsis and political clout put us in that stupid mess.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
And no, neither of the wars violate international law, not that I support them mind you...

Iraq does. The question is whether or not that fact matters, not whether or not its illegal.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
By spending our way out of debt, with borrowed money...not the best logic I think

The national debt didn't cause the financial crisis. You seem to have mixed your criticisms here.

Wrong again, you can show respect as an equal and not denote inferiority. It is a matter of symbolism and respect

Which is why the Japanese bow to EACH OTHER - that's what happened. To not bow would be the equivalent of refusing to shake hands with a European leader. Obama seems to be more about respect for other cultures and not this ridiculous 'AMERICA BOWS TO NO-ONE!!!11!!!' crap that made so many people around the world hate the USA. I applaud him for it.

Now, for his wife to put his arm around Her Majesty The Queen - that WAS a little inappropriate. She's not your Nana!

Whilst we are "happy" to allow people to debate issues on the OT board can we remind you that we do require respect for other posters and their beliefs and countries.

Comments like " this ridiculous 'AMERICA BOWS TO NO-ONE!!!11!!!' crap " step over that line a bit, if we could keep it toned down a notch please.

Ta.

Eh? Where did I state that that all Americans feel that way? Some Americans (in this very thread) feel that way, and I think it's ridiculous. What's wrong with that? How are you showing respect for MY beliefs?

And that's fine.

It's how you express that "belief" and the way you talk about or refer to the other posters that is the concern here. You'll note the lack of LOOK I'VE FOUND THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON and absence of 111!!!! in the other posts. We're asking you to show the level of respect that the others are showing.

See ?

I remember watching the news reports about this sort of thing and being completely baffled. I really wouldn't care if our head of state bowed or whatever, as long as it was respectful and all that.

Is it hard to understand that a bow can be the same as a handshake in other countries? I mean, you don't expect Obama to bow to foreign leaders for whom that is traditional when they come to visit, they shake hands. So, turn and turn about, he should do the same for them when he's over there. It's just manners.

I really don't see how bowing your head to someone you respect is different from shaking their hand. What's the big deal? We're all humans, and none of us deserve any more or less respect without reasoning.

I'll never understand why Americans think the way they do, nor can I really be bothered wondering about it myself.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Yes.

Wrong.

Says you...

JEB_Stuart wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If he didn't bow he's an ignoramus for not showing respect,

Wrong again, you can show respect as an equal and not denote inferiority. It is a matter of symbolism and respect

He was attempting to demonstrate understanding and respect for the monarch of the nation he was visiting, rather commendable and clearly superior than the ignorant and isolationist arrogance of the previous administration.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:if he didn't accept the nobel prize he'd have been insulting all those who'd received one before.

Or he could have declined it and let someone who actually deserved it take it. There is a long, long list of people who deserve it ahead of him

Perhaps, but the right wing Fox 'News' loving rightwingaz would have hung him just as high if he'd have 'snubbed' the Nobel folks...

JEB_Stuart wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:He has not led your country into 10 trillion debt with China.

To say he hasn't contributed a significant amount to that debt is ludicrous. He voted yes on the $600 billion bank bailout, and pushed for the nearly $1 trillion dollar stimulus package. And he voted for most of the government spending bills since 2004. So yes, he does have a finger in this pie

He's been fighting to stablise the economy and one of the methods he's been employing is injections of money from the warchest to counter the fall. The difference your failing to grasp is that his is a battle to save the economy from the plight it's in, the previous administration enabled that plight to occur.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:He has not committed your country to two wars at once, one of which contravenes international law.

But he does bomb countries that are not involved like Pakistan, and is indecisive on Afghanistan, and decided to follow policy that the Bush Administration laid down. And no, neither of the wars violate international law, not that I support them mind you...

Choice, very choice. Those areas coming under fire are already out of the control of the Pakistani Government, they have been engaged in a war inside their own borders for quite some time against the encroaching Taliban.
Bush did not wait for the approval of the United Nations before committing to war in Iraq. In that he had no greater rights than Saddam sailing gleefully over the border of Kuwait. Besides, why did he go to war there, it is STILL a mystery since Bin Laden was a blood enemy of Hussein and had even offered his services to Bush senior to attack Iraq.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:He has instead committed himself to pulling the Western World out of the financial gak it's in

By spending our way out of debt, with borrowed money...not the best logic I think

As already stated, he has been injecting amounts into the economy to slow the impact of the recession. He is fighting the legacy of crap brought about by his imbecile predecessor, who drove your country into the gak it's in now and accrued those debts during a relatively healthy world economic backdrop. If you have better solutions, do share them?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:to bringing about a reform to bring healthcare to all.

Just not the health care reform that most Americans want

A state supported healthcare system, the basic principle of which is to provide care for the nation irregardless of their finances. Instead of rational debate all I see is foam-mouthed halfwits carrying placards showing the fething concentration camps and comparing him to a nazi. The basic principle of healthcare for all is GOOD, if there are individual points to be hammered out, what are they? And more to the point, why the feth aren't the republicans and hard line right wing presenting them for discussion instead of whipping up the childish bs we are seeing with the town hall slanging matches and hatefests that seem to carry at their core a grudge that others should suffer for not being able to afford sufficient medical care.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:And you people scrape to find the slightest thing to try and hang the guy.

He should get the small things right if he wants to take on the big ones....

Far as I can see, he's doing a good job with the big things, it's bs like 'he's a muslim' or 'he's not a real american' or 'he's a nazi' that's holding things back. Frankly I'm astounded by the behaviour of the right wing. How does he 'get the small things right' when the small things presented are mind-numbingly stupid attempts and infantile point scoring. He's doing far better by ignoring them.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Frankly observing the Republicans, who seem to have fallen prey to their most extremist elements, if they continue touting people like Palin as a potential president, may they remain out in the cold for a very long time.

I don't know any Republicans, other then the women, who want Sarah Palin as the candidate in 2012. Almost all of them are either rooting for Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney.

Well I've spoken to several who voiced their admiration for that woman, seeing her as a people's champion, the idea that extremist could have her finger over the trigger terrifies me.

Albatross wrote:Eh? Where did I state that that all Americans feel that way? Some Americans (in this very thread) feel that way, and I think it's ridiculous. What's wrong with that? How are you showing respect for MY beliefs?

You're attacking flaming Americans. Seriously get off it or the Modquisition will restart. While light banter is just fine, we do not permit continuing attacks based on nationality on this board. Others have been suspended for similar behavior. You can argue positions vehemently just as MeanGreenStompa just did without violating this Rule, however, you're statements are falling into the area of generally attacks.

you're statements are falling into the area of generally attacks.

Please identify where I made a general attack on America/Americans via PM if you'd prefer to keep it off this thread. I've seen plenty of Anti-British/Atheist/liberal sentiment that goes beyond 'friendly banter' on this forum - funny how 'The Modquisition' never seems to show up as often in these instances. If pointing that out gets me suspended, then that's your call. But that isn't what I WANT to happen.

If anyone was offended by the post in question, perhaps they should ask themselves why...

Albatross wrote:

you're statements are falling into the area of generally attacks.

Please identify where I made a general attack on America/Americans via PM if you'd prefer to keep it off this thread. I've seen plenty of Anti-British/Atheist/liberal sentiment that goes beyond 'friendly banter' on this forum - funny how 'The Modquisition' never seems to show up as often in these instances. If pointing that out gets me suspended, then that's your call. But that isn't what I WANT to happen.

If anyone was offended by the post in question, perhaps they should ask themselves why...

Its public because I didn't suspend you. if its private it means you're getting a warning or a suspension. As policy we don't talk about suspensions/bans on other posters but they have indeed occurred on both sides.

I believe what just got blurred here was Albatross was referring to the implied world opinion of the Bush administration/far right republican previous government of the USA as being isolationist and aloof and unwilling to show diplomatic consideration. Further that there are some in the US who wholeheartedly support that, as opposed the notion of affording civility to another world leader based on the customs of the land you are visiting in order to foster better relations and portray your nation as an understanding and tolerant one.

That there is a misunderstanding between
a) not bowing to show that the US is a strong nation with no yoke about it's neck and isn't at the mercy of old imperial powers a'la 'don't tread on me'

vs

b) realising that in the nation of Japan, people bow to one another in the same way the western cultures shake hands and that by bowing, the leader of a western culture expects 1) a bow in return and 2) that it is clear to both parties that it is a greeting and not a mark of submission.

I think perhaps Albatross got missread and then got somewhat defensive.

Being in a relationship with an American girl, I am somewhat sensitive to hearing 'yank-bashing' and I'm afraid it's the poorly phrased sentence that says 'I hate what America has done here' rather than 'I hate what the [****] administration has done here'.

I have to tell you US guys that that's the price of being the superpower, we got it in the neck for several hundred years (especially from the Frenchies who were just jealous) and now you get to dominate the world stage and get criticism from the peanut gallery...(but like I was saying, it's sniping about administrations, world policies etc and not personal, just not well constructed).

Now, could we return to the debate at hand?

Albatross wrote:

you're statements are falling into the area of generally attacks.

Please identify where I made a general attack on America/Americans via PM if you'd prefer to keep it off this thread. I've seen plenty of Anti-British/Atheist/liberal sentiment that goes beyond 'friendly banter' on this forum - funny how 'The Modquisition' never seems to show up as often in these instances. If pointing that out gets me suspended, then that's your call. But that isn't what I WANT to happen.

Do you know why you don't see the anti-britsh/atheist stuff much? It's because I've been banned 3 times . But if you want me to start talking about the 1984 british nanny censor state made reality some more I'll be happy to do it in PM or AIM where Frazzled can't hurt us.

Its public because I didn't suspend you. if its private it means you're getting a warning or a suspension. As policy we don't talk about suspensions/bans on other posters but they have indeed occurred on both sides.

I just sent you a PM back about one such issue!

You're attacking flaming Americans.

As an American I feel pretty similarly to how he does. The xenophobic inanity that erupted about Obamas secret Muslim life and his bowing to foreign powers once in office was incredibly overplayed in conservative media. I saw his comments as more of an attack on certain Americans. The kind that deserve to be punched in the face repeatedly until their upper palate cracks and they stop breathing. But then I'm a traditionalist.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Now, could we return to the debate at hand?

Only if you can remind me what the debate was again...

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Now, could we return to the debate at hand?

Only if you can remind me what the debate was again...

Games workshop overpowers new plastic kits in codexes so that they sell better and make back their mould cost quickly.

This bodes well for the eventual release of plastic Grey Knights.

Gitzbitah wrote:This bodes well for the eventual release of plastic Grey Knights.

Unless they're anything like chaos spawn or the tau manta. It's all just a fabricated hatefest against GW, there's really no visible trend. Besides after Cruddace makes the tyranids unbeatable it might as well all be plastic.

Ah so now I understand Republicans obsession with the Second Amendment.

If I was this insecure, I would need a gun as well!

Shuma / Gitzbitah
Wait is there a technical glitch here and we're getting cross posts from another thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IntoTheRain wrote:Ah so now I understand Republicans obsession with the Second Amendment.

If I was this insecure, I would need a gun as well!

Its to protect them from the Democrats who want to abrogate every other amendment.
See that statement is as stupid as the one quoted.

If someone demands that the President bows to them, the President should tell them to feth off.

However, that's really not what's going on here. It's just people greeting each other. If your friend asks nicely for some spare dirt and water, you don't have to go kick them into a well.

Maybe he should have stuck with the handshake if he sucks at bowing, but I don't think it really matters. It's not like the Japanese are going to be thinking "Yess... America has knelt before our God-Emperor! Now they will serve us! Bwahaha..."

Orkeosaurus wrote:

If your friend asks nicely for some spare dirt and water, you don't have to go kick them into a well.

You don't? (looks in well) "er...sorry!"

Orkeosaurus wrote:If your friend asks nicely for some spare dirt and water, you don't have to go kick them into a well.

Must resist, must resiiiiist.

I guess then its proper to hold hands and be all gruff about it.

This thread is the reason I don't vote. Listening to the opinions of others, I find I can agree with both sides of the argument.
I tend to find myself on the fence, I just cannot make a decision, and I am not a "lesser of two evils" type of guy.

I consider myself part of the Gonzo Party, but the last time someone ran on that ticket was 1976. Before I was born.
That being said, I am probably not going to stick around for the rest of this conversation. I don't rally have much to contribute...

tblock1984 wrote:This thread is the reason I don't vote. Listening to the opinions of others, I find I can agree with both sides of the argument.
I tend to find myself on the fence, I just cannot make a decision, and I am not a "lesser of two evils" type of guy.

I consider myself part of the Gonzo Party, and the last time someone ran on that ticket was 1976.
That being said, I am probably not going to stick around for the rest of this conversation. I don't rally have much to contribute...

Vote Bull Moose. A vote for Roosevelt is a Vote for Freedom, and no one expects a Zombie a President.

I genuinely wish they'd include a 'none of the above' option on Votes.

I know others will disagree with me, and yes it is very much wasting your vote, but I consider it wasted in a constructive manner, as opposed to a) Just not voting (waste of Democracy!) or b) spoiling your Ballott

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I genuinely wish they'd include a 'none of the above' option on Votes.

I know others will disagree with me, and yes it is very much wasting your vote, but I consider it wasted in a constructive manner, as opposed to a) Just not voting (waste of Democracy!) or b) spoiling your Ballott

QFT

Interestingly that would still have led to a black president in the White House...

I saw his comments as more of an attack on certain Americans.

Exactly. I have no reason to attack America - I love many aspects of american culture, and as a scholar of music, being anti-American would certainly hamper my study of popular music. Also, there are Americans in my family! But certain Americans give the USA a bad name, just as certain Brits give us a bad name. That's all I was saying.

I think perhaps Albatross got missread and then got somewhat defensive.

QFT. Ok, I hold my hands up - I might have over-reacted a wee bit. I just hate it when people twist my words and intent.

Albatross wrote:

QFT. Ok, I hold my hands up - I might have over-reacted a wee bit. I just hate it when people twist my words and intent.

See, this is how fights start, noone 'twisted' your words, you wrote something and someone else read something different.

Written word is a bitch, the sentence i wrote above this one was written with me hearing it in my head as me saying it in a casual and friendly way, but you might read it and hear patronisation. 99% of fighting on dakka or anywhere on the webs is a result of the full meaning not being conveyed or being conveyed in a different tone in the reader than in the writer.

You got defensive...because you read others attacking you...because they got defensive...because they read you attacking them.


peace man...

@MGS - Peace, totally - not trying to start gak!
What I meant was I overreacted because I was accused of an Anti-American attack, which my statement wasn't, and wasn't intended to be - as several people (including your good self) rightly identified.
I FELT that my intent had been twisted and y'know, went 'off on one'. We all do it!

But that's over now - I've taken up yoga and flower arranging....






Till next time.

Just kidding.

I dont like Obama very much, but i feel the US media over reacted. He was just being polite... theres no need to get your knickers in a twist lads!

Albatross wrote:@MGS - Peace, totally - not trying to start gak!
What I meant was I overreacted because I was accused of an Anti-American attack, which my statement wasn't, and wasn't intended to be - as several people (including your good self) rightly identified.
I FELT that my intent had been twisted and y'know, went 'off on one'. We all do it!

But that's over now - I've taken up yoga and flower arranging....






Till next time.

Just kidding.

QFT... Warning, rant initializing:

That is why I placed a disclaimer at the end of my post in the Christmas thread. I was afraid someone would call me out on the fact that I said I celebrate Christmas and Yule in the same sentence. I have been called a Satan worshiping hypocrite in the past... Not here on Dakka, but still, I am always cautious...

It really grinds my gears that I try to have an open mind to ALL beliefs, and if I celebrate Christmas and Yule/Solstice, that just means now TFG has two things to flame me about, not one...

But now I am afraid some one will read that disclaimer as an invitation to fight. I can't fething win... Sorry, today is a glass half empty day...

Wow, I got waaaay off topic... What is this thread even about again??? Oh, yeah, voting...

Damn, I go to work for a day and have to work even more when I get home!

dogma wrote:No there aren't, because it isn't an award which is given in that fashion. The Peace Prize is presented to whomever the Nobel committee feels is deserving, where desert is measured according to an exceptionally broad criterion.

True, but that doesn't mean more people aren't deserving. This we will have to agree to disagree, because this is more a matter of opinion than fact or reasoning...

dogma wrote:Pakistan is involved; pretending otherwise is foolish.

While I agree that Pakistan is involved, that was poor wording on my part, he shouldn't be bombing it. By killing innocent civilians, he is only contributing to the "Let's feth Team America" bandawagon

dogma wrote:It was fairly sound policy to begin with; though it will inevitably turn the conflict into a quagmire. But that was something that should have been considered before invasion. The desire for catharsis and political clout put us in that stupid mess.

Agreed again, but I was merely pointing out his involvement in a protracted conflict that he pledged to end. It was a retort to MGS blanket criticism on the Bush Administration

Albatross wrote: Which is why the Japanese bow to EACH OTHER - that's what happened. To not bow would be the equivalent of refusing to shake hands with a European leader. Obama seems to be more about respect for other cultures and not this ridiculous 'AMERICA BOWS TO NO-ONE!!!11!!!' crap that made so many people around the world hate the USA. I applaud him for it.

Well that's all well and good for you, but that doesn't make it ok. I am a traditionalist, and a classic liberal among other things, this bow spits in the face of over 200 years of tradition and attitude. Symbolism is more important than any of you realize...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:He was attempting to demonstrate understanding and respect for the monarch of the nation he was visiting, rather commendable and clearly superior than the ignorant and isolationist arrogance of the previous administration.

You mean the isolationism that built a strong political and personal relationship between President Bush and oh lets see: PM Tony Blair, PM Junichiro Koizumi, President Nicholas Sarkozy, Chancellor Angela Merkel, etc. Not to mention the billions he gave to Africa to help fight AIDs and which made him insanely popular in Sub-Saharan Africa. Oh my, how isolationist....

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Perhaps, but the right wing Fox 'News' loving rightwingaz would have hung him just as high if he'd have 'snubbed' the Nobel folks...

That is a matter of speculation, and I think they would have supported him in declining the award...but that is again a matter of speculation...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:He's been fighting to stablise the economy and one of the methods he's been employing is injections of money from the warchest to counter the fall. The difference your failing to grasp is that his is a battle to save the economy from the plight it's in, the previous administration enabled that plight to occur.

And as a previous voting senator he still bears some of that responsibility, not to mention the incredible amount of money his own administration has spent. The CBO reported that President Obama spent more in his first year in office then the Bush Administrations first 6 years combined.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:A state supported healthcare system, the basic principle of which is to provide care for the nation irregardless of their finances. Instead of rational debate all I see is foam-mouthed halfwits carrying placards showing the fething concentration camps and comparing him to a nazi.

That is all the media reports, because that sells news. I have been to several protests, mostly to take photographs and such, and I never saw any of the signs like you describe...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Far as I can see, he's doing a good job with the big things, it's bs like 'he's a muslim' or 'he's not a real american' or 'he's a nazi' that's holding things back. Frankly I'm astounded by the behaviour of the right wing. How does he 'get the small things right' when the small things presented are mind-numbingly stupid attempts and infantile point scoring. He's doing far better by ignoring them.

Well I don't know anyone, other then some of my crazy, redneck cousins who say those things. Those people are the fringe of the conservative element of the US, just like the leftist protesters who compared GWB to Hitler are the fringe of the liberal movement...damn I hate those terms. You are only seeing what you are told, and not what is really happening. I am decidedly not right wing or left wing. My own personal political convictions don't sit well with most Americans, but I try to remain open minded, and I don't have a problem criticizing any politician or gasbag, its my right as an American to do so.

@Shuma: Sometimes your posts are just awesome....

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well that's all well and good for you, but that doesn't make it ok. I am a traditionalist, and a classic liberal among other things, this bow spits in the face of over 200 years of tradition and attitude. Symbolism is more important than any of you realize...

TBTH, I sort of understand what you are saying... but then again, not really. In a way, I see all this as apologizing for that whole... erm... Vomiting shrubbery thing...

Wrexasaur wrote:
TBTH, I sort of understand what you are saying... but then again, not really. In a way, I see all this as apologizing for that whole... erm... Vomiting shrubbery thing...

Bwahahaha, now that was just plain comedy gold.

this bow spits in the face of over 200 years of tradition and attitude.

Wow! 200 years! That's.....forever.

The Pub next to my house is older than that.

The Japanese have been bowing to each other for thousands of years, it is appropriate social behaviour when meeting someone for the first time, to show respect. The Emperor bowed to Obama too.

How does disrespecting other cultures make you a 'Liberal'?

Albatross wrote: Wow! 200 years! That's.....forever.

The Pub next to my house is older than that.

Wow! Nice troll! Way to compare the value of my country and one of its tradition to a restaurant...

Albatross wrote:The Japanese have been bowing to each other for thousands of years, it is appropriate social behaviour when meeting someone for the first time, to show respect. The Emperor bowed to Obama too.

Ok, so I explain why I am against it, and why many Americans are upset about it. I even give a damn good academic explanation, which is my reason for disapproving, and you still don't get it. Are you just intentionally ignoring my reasons, or do you just not understand reason?

Albatross wrote:How does disrespecting other cultures make you a 'Liberal'?

You obviously have no idea what I am talking about...try reading up on your Enlightenment philosophy, it might actually help you understand what I am talking about, why I am upset, and what I am saying...

Albatross wrote:

this bow spits in the face of over 200 years of tradition and attitude.

Wow! 200 years! That's.....forever.

The Pub next to my house is older than that.

Listen saxon... The town I grew up in was trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud hut farms on a hill and your people were still getting owned by terror birds and dire otters. What's your point?

(see, i can be nationalistically insensitive as well! )

...and waits for someone from China to show up and piss on everyone's chips...

@JEB - I wasn't trolling, just 'friendly banter' - don't be hyper-sensitive. Or patronising.

I understand your reasons, but I disagree with them. You often seem to take this tack when people disagree with you.
Obama should have refused to bow to the Japanese Emperor when visiting Japan? What, because of 'classical liberalism'? Where in the canon of enlightenment literature does it say anything about disrespecting foreign leaders? Anyway, we don't live in that era any more - as you are no doubt aware, the world is a different place now.
Would Americans have appreciated it if our Queen had refused to shake Obamas hand? This is nothing to do with revolutionary philosophy or principles, you can dress it up however you like, but it's just arrogance that is driving this outcry.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Ok, so I explain why I am against it, and why many Americans are upset about it. I even give a damn good academic explanation, which is my reason for disapproving, and you still don't get it. Are you just intentionally ignoring my reasons, or do you just not understand reason?

But you understand that in Japan bowing, and then being bowed to, is equivalent to shaking hands? Just like in the middle east holding hands is quite different to how it is perceived here. Bush respected that, and when he went he held hands with Prince Abdulluh.

You're in their country, you use their method of recognising mutual respect. Bush did it, Obama did it.

The only way I could see anyone being genuinely concerned by this is if Obama was required to bow, and no similar gesture was made in return, but none of that happened.

What is important to remember is that the Emperor bowed to Obama as well and that isn't supposed to happen either.

It was two leaders according each other a polite greeting. Nothing more.

Albatross wrote:but it's just arrogance that is driving this outcry.

It isn't arrogance, it's talking point politics driving this thing. The role of opposition is to attack every little thing the President does.

If Obama hadn't bowed we'd have talking heads complaining about Obama's arrogance.

sebster wrote:But you understand that in Japan bowing, and then being bowed to, is equivalent to shaking hands? Just like in the middle east holding hands is quite different to how it is perceived here. Bush respected that, and when he went he held hands with Prince Abdulluh.

You're in their country, you use their method of recognising mutual respect. Bush did it, Obama did it.

The only way I could see anyone being genuinely concerned by this is if Obama was required to bow, and no similar gesture was made in return, but none of that happened.

Yes sebster, I understand his reasoning, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it. Even the State Department suggested hand shaking. And this isn't the first time he has done this, he bowed to King Abdulluh, and no bow was returned. That happened earlier this year. I am just stating that American presidents don't bow because of our own standards on human value and equality. It is a tradition that is as old as the presidency itself, and I don't like people just blowing stuff like that off.

Bah, look at me, I am tired and grouchy...I will deal with this later....

Can you understand why I believe what I do?

I get what your saying.

Overall though, I think that showing the ability to respect our allies, on both our terms and theirs combined; is a good idea. It is not exactly like President Obama has been bowing to everyone he meets on his trips. If their were a culture that had a custom, where the greeting was to rub butts or something, sure; what Bush Jr. did fell closer to that category in my book.

In some ways, I do think that the Republican talking points mainly focus on, no necessarily ignoring past Presidents of their own parties; just setting them to the side occasionally. Democrats do similar stuff though, especially during elections.

All of this just makes me think of Rudy Giuliani though... forgetting (reformatting?) what he just had for lunch... .

JEB_Stuart wrote:While I agree that Pakistan is involved, that was poor wording on my part, he shouldn't be bombing it. By killing innocent civilians, he is only contributing to the "Let's feth Team America" bandawagon

I'll say that civilian casualties should be avoided, but I'm not one to take a huge interest in innocence in this type of terrain situation. There isn't much on the northern border of Pakistan besides Pashtun tribes, and Pakistani/Afghani/Taliban rebels. Its certainly not as if bombs are raining down on Islamabad, or Karachi. Not exactly razor logic, but you don't get that when you operate on the other side of a planet in what is essentially a mountainous wasteland.

It should also be pointed out that Pakistan has complied with this arrangement; albeit with substantial reservation.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Agreed again, but I was merely pointing out his involvement in a protracted conflict that he pledged to end. It was a retort to MGS blanket criticism on the Bush Administration

If I recall correctly, and I might not, he pledged to end Iraq (which was still foolish, we'll be there for some time now that our lease on Prince Sultan is up), not Afghanistan. I think he actually claimed that he would place a greater emphasis on that conflict.

There's also the bit about ending wars frequently involving a greater emphasis on finishing them. Of course, no one ever stops to think about that, they just hear what they want.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Symbolism is more important than any of you realize...

Its exactly as important as you make it out to be, which turns out to be quite a lot in the course conversations in the peanut gallery. The thing is that most people know nothing about international politics, or politics in general for that matter, and so they are placated and engaged with gestures made in the public fora. The bow was such a gesture, and it was a poor one given America's traditionally bluster-filled self image. It was something bound to cause a great deal of nonsensical conversation, and that isn't anything a controversial leader should seek to curry. However, its important to distinguish between a gesture to the mob, and a gesture of policy. This bow was the former, and had no affect on our actual position with respect to Japan, China, Iran, or any other nation.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
That is a matter of speculation, and I think they would have supported him in declining the award...but that is again a matter of speculation...

An Obama decline reported by Fox would have played out exactly as a Bush decline reported by MSNBC: either outright condemnation, or a backhanded attack.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I am just stating that American presidents don't bow because of our own standards on human value and equality.

It will be interesting to see how the rules of diplomacy are affected by the ubiquity of public media. All these people in the world will be required to revisit the actual significance of their conventional gestures. That, or statesmen will stand perfectly still during greetings.

The point to remember is that the purpose of a Presidential visit to an ally is to cement relations between the allies, not with the US electorate.

Honestly. Whats the big deal? A bow is just a polite greeting over there. Nothing more. If Bush did it, then FOX et al wouldnt even mention it. Its absurd that people are getting uppity about it.

He bowed, the Japanese dude bowed. Thats it.

feth me.. you'd think Obama prostrated himself on the floor like ala Waynes World when they met Alice Cooper.


Its a cheap poltical shot, by Repulicans to spread disinformation about a candidate they dont like.

And before you all jump on and call me a liberal. I rather dislike Obama, if Mcain, a man i genuinely like, had picked a better running mate, then id have actually prefered him to win. But this is being blown out of all proportion.

I am just stating that American presidents don't bow because of our own standards on human value and equality.

Fair enough, but those are ideals - I'm sure I don't have to point out the difference between ideals and actions, especially with regard to the recent alleged kidnap/torture/imprisonment without trial/general human rights abuses furore involving both the USA and UK. Perhaps they are noble ideals to hold, but reality often requires a fair amount of compromise.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Albatross wrote:

this bow spits in the face of over 200 years of tradition and attitude.

Wow! 200 years! That's.....forever.

The Pub next to my house is older than that.

Listen saxon... The town I grew up in was trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud hut farms on a hill and your people were still getting owned by terror birds and dire otters. What's your point?

(see, i can be nationalistically insensitive as well! )

...and waits for someone from China to show up and piss on everyone's chips...

Wussy. I REMEMBER trading tin with the Phoenicians. What a bunch of sharks, but man they could throw a party like no one's business. I remember when Altluck the Caanite had a birthday party and invited his cousin from Phoenicia. He brought like fifteen score of wine jars. Wee hew!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Survey-finds-only-43-percent-would-re-elect-Obama-now-70307497.html

Survey finds only 43 percent would re-elect Obama now
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
11/17/09 5:03 PM EST
Only 43 percent of voters surveyed by the Zogby/O'Leary Poll would vote for President Obama less than a year after he was elected, or about the same level of support President Clinton won in 1992 in a three-way race with the first President Bush and former EDS executive and national political gadfly Ross Perot.

Perhaps even more worrisome for the president is that only 37 percent of independents queried in the survey said they would support Obama. That figure appears to be consistent with exit polling following the Virginia and New Jersey governorship races which indicated a seismic shift among independents away from Obama and to Republican candidates Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie.

And on the question of trust, Obama also fell far short of his performance during the 2008 presidential race. A year later, Zogby/O'Leary find that 42 percent of voters say they do not trust the Obama White House “at all” to gain passage in Congress of legislation that will create new jobs in 2010, and another 11 percent say they don't have much trust that the president can succeed on that score.

The survey is conducted by pollster Brad O'Leary in conjunction with Zogby International.

“President Obama’s popularity with the voting public has been eroding for some time, but these numbers really drive home the point,” said O’Leary. “Most voters don’t trust the president on the number one issue of the day, job creation. On top of that, a surprising plurality of voters, and Independent voters in particular, don’t side with President Obama on the number one issue to him: whether or not he should be President.”

Again, survey worth dirt. I make those things, you can manipulate the questions to generate any answer you want.

If only 43% are saying they'd vote for him, I'd suggest given that the honeymoon is long past and he's still got a sizeable level of support. I actually think that's a pretty good recorded figure of continued endorsement. Also just how many of those 'voters' actually bother to vote, where did the poll take place? What was the ethnic breakdown of those polled? What day of the week was it? Was it a sunny day?

Surveys, despite the fact my masters keep making me run them, mean jack gak.

Likely voters are much lower actually. I don't post Rasmussen because its been low for a fair while. Other polls came out this morning that he's under 50% for the first time.

Like many US presidents, he's becoming more liked abroad then at home.

@MGS - Hey! Who are you calling a Saxon? I'm an Ulsterman (sort of).

You silly mammals.