Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.