Heads Up! WH Claims Obama Didn't Bow to Arab King

Uh...okay.

He was just checking if his shoes was tied.

SamCogar wrote:He was just checking if his shoes was tied.

No, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. The man is unfit to hold the office of the President.

SamCogar wrote:He was just checking if his shoes was tied.

I thought maybe he dropped his pork weenie hors d'oeuvre. Why shouldn't he bow...he already kissed his arse?

Cato wrote:

SamCogar wrote:He was just checking if his shoes was tied.

No, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. The man is unfit to hold the office of the President.

No, not according to the Constitution. Or do you- as with the New Testemant- have the only "correct" understanding of that, too?

The constitution doesn't stipulate fitness, only mininum qualifications to hold office. Why am I not suprised you don't understand that.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

SamCogar wrote:He was just checking if his shoes was tied.

No, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. The man is unfit to hold the office of the President.

No, not according to the Constitution. Or do you- as with the New Testemant- have the only "correct" understanding of that, too?

Personal attacks tsk tsk tsk. That the best you can do.

Barack H. Obama might be qualified constitutionally, but he is still unfit to hold the office the president of the United States for a variety of reasons. He's socialistic authoritarian for one. Some of his visions for the United States are to say the least scary. Further, he is pushing the nation closer to fascism, which I remind you, you were whining about yesterday. Additionally his demeanor demostrates weakness to a people where that is about the last thing you want to demostrate.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html

Now the WH said that Obama is so tall that he had to bow to reach down to the King's hand. Where was the King's hand--on his ankle?

Cato wrote:Further, he is pushing the nation closer to fascism, which I remind you, you were whining about yesterday.

It seems to me that both Ziggy and Sherman don't have a problem with many of the things Obama is doing that they cried afoul when GWB did them, even though they are basically the same thing and in reality, Obama thus far is nothing more the a continuation of the same failed policies of GWB.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

SamCogar wrote:He was just checking if his shoes was tied.

No, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. The man is unfit to hold the office of the President.

No, not according to the Constitution. Or do you- as with the New Testemant- have the only "correct" understanding of that, too?

Personal attacks tsk tsk tsk. That the best you can do.

It is no personal attack. You said that you understood the New Testement, and that there was no room for honest disagreement about that understanding.

Aaron wrote:The constitution doesn't stipulate fitness, only mininum qualifications to hold office. Why am I not suprised you don't understand that.

Legally and Constitutionally, if one meets the minimum qualifications one is fit to hold the office. So even a doh-doh like George W. Bush was fit to hold the office of president. The Constitution says so. But I suppose that if one is an unabashed partisan, then no one of another party is "fit" to hold office.

Aaron wrote:It seems to me that both Ziggy and Sherman don't have a problem with many of the things Obama is doing that they cried afoul when GWB did them, even though they are basically the same thing and in reality, Obama thus far is nothing more the a continuation of the same failed policies of GWB.

Yes, and including staying in Iraq and giving away the U.S. Treasury away to some of the biggest corporations in the world.

If you are suggesting that- fiscally and militarily- that so far Obama is at least as bad as Bush, then I agree.

Barack H. Obama might be qualified constitutionally, but he is still unfit to hold the office the president of the United States for a variety of reasons.

He is no more unfit than his predecessor.

He's socialistic authoritarian for one. Some of his visions for the United States are to say the least scary. Further, he is pushing the nation closer to fascism, which I remind you, you were whining about yesterday.

Bush was all this, too. That does not excuse Obama. But where were you only six months ago?

Additionally his demeanor demostrates weakness to a people where that is about the last thing you want to demostrate.

One person's perceived weakness is another person's perceived strength.

""The only way out of our crisis (terrorism) is to reduce the anger of the most rational, thus also reducing the constituency of the least rational."- Sam Smith.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

SamCogar wrote:He was just checking if his shoes was tied.

No, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. The man is unfit to hold the office of the President.

No, not according to the Constitution. Or do you- as with the New Testemant- have the only "correct" understanding of that, too?

Personal attacks tsk tsk tsk. That the best you can do.

It is no personal attack. You said that you understood the New Testement, and that there was no room for honest disagreement about that understanding.

I said that it says what it says. I said that it was dishonest to make it say what it doesn't or to pick and choose what to accept and reject. I also said you were more than welcome to believe as you desire, but that doesn't make you right. Finally, in regard to the New Testament, there is no such thing as honest disagree on matters of doctrine, but then again you siad you didn't believe in doctrine. By that doesn't make sence because doctrine is teaching. You say you are an anarchist, then you believe and acept the doctrine of anarchy.

Further Ziggy, what I think about the New Testament has nothing to do with what Obama is doing or what I think for him or the reasons I think he is unfit to be the president of this nation.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

SamCogar wrote:He was just checking if his shoes was tied.

No, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. The man is unfit to hold the office of the President.

No, not according to the Constitution. Or do you- as with the New Testemant- have the only "correct" understanding of that, too?

Personal attacks tsk tsk tsk. That the best you can do.

It is no personal attack. You said that you understood the New Testement, and that there was no room for honest disagreement about that understanding.

I said that it says what it says. I said that it was dishonest to make it say what it doesn't or to pick and choose what to accept and reject. I also said you were more than welcome to believe as you desire, but that doesn't make you right. Finally, in regard to the New Testament, there is no such thing as honest disagree on matters of doctrine, but then again you siad you didn't believe in doctrine. By that doesn't make sence because doctrine is teaching. You say you are an anarchist, then you believe and acept the doctrine of anarchy.

Further Ziggy, what I think about the New Testament has nothing to do with what Obama is doing or what I think for him or the reasons I think he is unfit to be the president of this nation.

But what you chose to say publicly about your understanding of the New Testement does have to do with whether I was or was not engaging in "personal attacks" by referring to it. You chose to offer yourself as a person of some special Biblical learnedness- as one with no biases or prejudices to shade your perceptions of Biblical meanings- and you even opine that in regard to the New Testament, there is no such thing as honest disagreement on matters of doctrine. You can't do that and then complain that it is "personal attacks" when I refer to it.

Looks to me like he is kissing the ring on the hand of The King.

If Obama was just bowing to The King then both his hands would be in the same position. Either along his side or clasped together on his chest in front of him.

Old Religious teachings of Authority during one's childhood are never completely forgotten.



.



.

SamCogar wrote:

Looks to me like he is kissing the ring on the hand of The King.

If Obama was just bowing to The King then both his hands would be in the same position. Either along his side or clasped together on his chest in front of him.

Old Religious teachings of Authority during one's childhood are never completely forgotten.

.



.

Are you saying that he learned that In Kenya?

[quote="ziggy"]

Barack H. Obama might be qualified constitutionally, but he is still unfit to hold the office the president of the United States for a variety of reasons.

He is no more unfit than his predecessor.

And I never said he was.

He's socialistic authoritarian for one. Some of his visions for the United States are to say the least scary. Further, he is pushing the nation closer to fascism, which I remind you, you were whining about yesterday.

Bush was all this, too. That does not excuse Obama. But where were you only six months ago?

I believe if you go back and look I was giving Bush fits also. The fact of the matter is Ziggy, I have no use for either side, democrats or republicans. What you have is one authoritarian party that has a right and left side.

Additionally his demeanor demostrates weakness to a people where that is about the last thing you want to demostrate.

One person's perceived weakness is another person's perceived strength.

Maybe so.

Bush did the samething when he went begging for the Saudi's to increase their oil supply to the west. He showed weakness that the middle east exploited. Obama in his statements of reaching out and if he is bowing, bowing to the most authoritarian regime on earth is doing the samething.

""The only way out of our crisis (terrorism) is to reduce the anger of the most rational, thus also reducing the constituency of the least rational."- Sam Smith.

The only way out of the mess we've created in the middle east is for our politicians to keep the bloody noses out of the affairs of other nations. That means desolving our relationship with the United Nations. It means closing our embassies in all nations and only have a contingency in any nation once they allow it for thep urpose of helping our citizens do business in that nation. It means never taking sides or supplying arms to one side or the other.

It means to allow free trade and free association with all nations. Most importantly, to have the military might necessary to assure a rapid and horrible responce if this nation is attacked and to make it clear to the world as a whole that we can live in peace with all nations, however, if you attack us or sponsor terrorism that kills Americans you will suffer immediate and horrible retaliation with the intent of killing those responsible, killing the leaders of the nation or nations involved, destorying their ability to make the instruments of war, and destorying their will to make war.

ziggy wrote: But what you chose to say publicly about your understanding of the New Testement does have to do with whether I was or was not engaging in "personal attacks" by referring to it. You chose to offer yourself as a person of some special Biblical learnedness- as one with no biases or prejudices to shade your perceptions of Biblical meanings- and you even opine that in regard to the New Testament, there is no such thing as honest disagreement on matters of doctrine. You can't do that and then complain that it is "personal attacks" when I refer to it.

I can and I did when you make it as snide remark.

Cato wrote:
It means to allow free trade and free association with all nations. Most importantly, to have the military might necessary to assure a rapid and horrible responce if this nation is attacked and to make it clear to the world as a whole that we can live in peace with all nations, however, if you attack us or sponsor terrorism that kills Americans you will suffer immediate and horrible retaliation with the intent of killing those responsible, killing the leaders of the nation or nations involved, destorying their ability to make the instruments of war, and destorying their will to make war.

Amen

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:
It means to allow free trade and free association with all nations. Most importantly, to have the military might necessary to assure a rapid and horrible responce if this nation is attacked and to make it clear to the world as a whole that we can live in peace with all nations, however, if you attack us or sponsor terrorism that kills Americans you will suffer immediate and horrible retaliation with the intent of killing those responsible, killing the leaders of the nation or nations involved, destorying their ability to make the instruments of war, and destorying their will to make war.

Amen

I'm a student of General William T. Sherman. When asked about his march through Georgia he stated that he did what he did because he didn't want to have to do it again. thus he wanted to break their will to wage war.

Ronald Reagan was asked once about his military spending and if it was a threat to peace. He stated that the only way to ensure pease was through strength. That is one of the truest statements he ever made.

Kelock wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

Old Religious teachings of Authority during one's childhood are never completely forgotten.

Are you saying that he learned that In Kenya?

In Malaysia ...... where he didn't attend any Muslim Grade School.

.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:It seems to me that both Ziggy and Sherman don't have a problem with many of the things Obama is doing that they cried afoul when GWB did them, even though they are basically the same thing and in reality, Obama thus far is nothing more the a continuation of the same failed policies of GWB.

Yes, and including staying in Iraq and giving away the U.S. Treasury away to some of the biggest corporations in the world.

If you are suggesting that- fiscally and militarily- that so far Obama is at least as bad as Bush, then I agree.

I certainly agree Obama is at least as bad as Bush. I am becoming convinced he is actually worse.

I'm still trying to figure out what W. T. Sherman's relationship with Tecumseh amounted to.