Does this turn your stomach?
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: Columbia Station, Ohio
He shook his hand; I see no bow. If you have problems with Obama, like I said before; I can understand that---but you cannot say that he is DOING ANYTHING MORE HORRID than the previous 7-8 administrations have done.
BTW, Chris, Pres. Reagan and Mrs. Reagan BOWED to the Queen of England during her visit then. Hard to argue that .
TSC
Last edited by referee54; Apr 19, 2009 at 04:05 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 664
Likes: 1
From: Whitehorse, Yukon
Yeah Chris, they Bowed down like a pair of obedient biatches 
Bowed, Bowed nice and low, what you say about that? That's right.
They gave it up for the Queen and showed just how 'weak', "submissive" and 'obedient" they are.
Bowed, Bowed nice and low, what you say about that? That's right.
They gave it up for the Queen and showed just how 'weak', "submissive" and 'obedient" they are.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
Oh don't worry.. there is plenty I didn't agree with either bush with. Bowing is one of the many things. You liberals always point to bush like he was a conservitive. Ya'll need to get real and realize we didn't like them much.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
From: Western Massachusetts
So, here we have a case of the "YA WELLs".
If the arguments go back so far, at what point will a majority of the American people stand up and demand that the government run like the blueprint shows?
Should we just add Obama to the long list of presidents who does things wrong and recieves no consequence for doing so? We, the American people are always the ones who pay the consequences.
If I look at who else did whatever to whomever, then what? Sit on my hands some more like a majority of the American people?
What about, after all this time and looking at who else did whatever to whomever, we do something? We can stop the YA BUTs and the YA WELLs. That's the way that I'm looking at the situation. It seems like there are just too many Americans who would rather give the current administration a pass for what previous administrations have got away with. This is a vicious cycle. We will continue to suffer the consequences if we continue this distracting argument.
People really aren't interested in finally holding our government accountable, because they have a thing for Obama? Same old, same old, eh? If it's the same old, same old, why don't more people want to make a difference?
We can demand that our government, all of it from the president down to the town council members, do the job that we've put them there to do. A start would be for anyone who is a registered voter who is registered either (R) or (D) to change thier registration to (I). If we want them to work for our vote, we can't assure them so many votes before they've even proved themselves. I understand that the (D)'s aren't likely to do this being that their party is in power. Same old, same old. The (R)'s should do it anyhow. We can vote for who we want but we shouldn't be handing them votes when they haven't been doing their job.
Also, being that it is same old, same old, how about making it a point to vote no incumbents. If we are to get change, we need to change the people who have been entrenched in our government for way, way too long.
We can continue with this my party, your party for generations if that's what a majority wants. It hasn't done a thing in the past to get our government to do the job they are supposed to do, and it won't do anything now, or in the future. We have to look at OUR government and the blueprint that the Founders created, to get it working in the way that it is intended to work. For the people, by the people.
The bottom line is this---you folks just do not like Obama, and anything he does---in this case, talking to Chavez, PO's you. I can understand that...but you had better look at who else did whatever with whomever years and years before. Your argument should go back to Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, etc..
Should we just add Obama to the long list of presidents who does things wrong and recieves no consequence for doing so? We, the American people are always the ones who pay the consequences.
If I look at who else did whatever to whomever, then what? Sit on my hands some more like a majority of the American people?
What about, after all this time and looking at who else did whatever to whomever, we do something? We can stop the YA BUTs and the YA WELLs. That's the way that I'm looking at the situation. It seems like there are just too many Americans who would rather give the current administration a pass for what previous administrations have got away with. This is a vicious cycle. We will continue to suffer the consequences if we continue this distracting argument.
People really aren't interested in finally holding our government accountable, because they have a thing for Obama? Same old, same old, eh? If it's the same old, same old, why don't more people want to make a difference?
We can demand that our government, all of it from the president down to the town council members, do the job that we've put them there to do. A start would be for anyone who is a registered voter who is registered either (R) or (D) to change thier registration to (I). If we want them to work for our vote, we can't assure them so many votes before they've even proved themselves. I understand that the (D)'s aren't likely to do this being that their party is in power. Same old, same old. The (R)'s should do it anyhow. We can vote for who we want but we shouldn't be handing them votes when they haven't been doing their job.
Also, being that it is same old, same old, how about making it a point to vote no incumbents. If we are to get change, we need to change the people who have been entrenched in our government for way, way too long.
We can continue with this my party, your party for generations if that's what a majority wants. It hasn't done a thing in the past to get our government to do the job they are supposed to do, and it won't do anything now, or in the future. We have to look at OUR government and the blueprint that the Founders created, to get it working in the way that it is intended to work. For the people, by the people.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 774
Likes: 1
From: western washington
So, here we have a case of the "YA WELLs".
If the arguments go back so far, at what point will a majority of the American people stand up and demand that the government run like the blueprint shows?
Should we just add Obama to the long list of presidents who does things wrong and recieves no consequence for doing so? We, the American people are always the ones who pay the consequences.
If I look at who else did whatever to whomever, then what? Sit on my hands some more like a majority of the American people?
What about, after all this time and looking at who else did whatever to whomever, we do something? We can stop the YA BUTs and the YA WELLs. That's the way that I'm looking at the situation. It seems like there are just too many Americans who would rather give the current administration a pass for what previous administrations have got away with. This is a vicious cycle. We will continue to suffer the consequences if we continue this distracting argument.
People really aren't interested in finally holding our government accountable, because they have a thing for Obama? Same old, same old, eh? If it's the same old, same old, why don't more people want to make a difference?
We can demand that our government, all of it from the president down to the town council members, do the job that we've put them there to do. A start would be for anyone who is a registered voter who is registered either (R) or (D) to change thier registration to (I). If we want them to work for our vote, we can't assure them so many votes before they've even proved themselves. I understand that the (D)'s aren't likely to do this being that their party is in power. Same old, same old. The (R)'s should do it anyhow. We can vote for who we want but we shouldn't be handing them votes when they haven't been doing their job.
Also, being that it is same old, same old, how about making it a point to vote no incumbents. If we are to get change, we need to change the people who have been entrenched in our government for way, way too long.
We can continue with this my party, your party for generations if that's what a majority wants. It hasn't done a thing in the past to get our government to do the job they are supposed to do, and it won't do anything now, or in the future. We have to look at OUR government and the blueprint that the Founders created, to get it working in the way that it is intended to work. For the people, by the people.
If the arguments go back so far, at what point will a majority of the American people stand up and demand that the government run like the blueprint shows?
Should we just add Obama to the long list of presidents who does things wrong and recieves no consequence for doing so? We, the American people are always the ones who pay the consequences.
If I look at who else did whatever to whomever, then what? Sit on my hands some more like a majority of the American people?
What about, after all this time and looking at who else did whatever to whomever, we do something? We can stop the YA BUTs and the YA WELLs. That's the way that I'm looking at the situation. It seems like there are just too many Americans who would rather give the current administration a pass for what previous administrations have got away with. This is a vicious cycle. We will continue to suffer the consequences if we continue this distracting argument.
People really aren't interested in finally holding our government accountable, because they have a thing for Obama? Same old, same old, eh? If it's the same old, same old, why don't more people want to make a difference?
We can demand that our government, all of it from the president down to the town council members, do the job that we've put them there to do. A start would be for anyone who is a registered voter who is registered either (R) or (D) to change thier registration to (I). If we want them to work for our vote, we can't assure them so many votes before they've even proved themselves. I understand that the (D)'s aren't likely to do this being that their party is in power. Same old, same old. The (R)'s should do it anyhow. We can vote for who we want but we shouldn't be handing them votes when they haven't been doing their job.
Also, being that it is same old, same old, how about making it a point to vote no incumbents. If we are to get change, we need to change the people who have been entrenched in our government for way, way too long.
We can continue with this my party, your party for generations if that's what a majority wants. It hasn't done a thing in the past to get our government to do the job they are supposed to do, and it won't do anything now, or in the future. We have to look at OUR government and the blueprint that the Founders created, to get it working in the way that it is intended to work. For the people, by the people.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 705
Likes: 42
So, here we have a case of the "YA WELLs".
If the arguments go back so far, at what point will a majority of the American people stand up and demand that the government run like the blueprint shows?
Should we just add Obama to the long list of presidents who does things wrong and recieves no consequence for doing so? We, the American people are always the ones who pay the consequences.
If I look at who else did whatever to whomever, then what? Sit on my hands some more like a majority of the American people?
What about, after all this time and looking at who else did whatever to whomever, we do something? We can stop the YA BUTs and the YA WELLs. That's the way that I'm looking at the situation. It seems like there are just too many Americans who would rather give the current administration a pass for what previous administrations have got away with. This is a vicious cycle. We will continue to suffer the consequences if we continue this distracting argument.
People really aren't interested in finally holding our government accountable, because they have a thing for Obama? Same old, same old, eh? If it's the same old, same old, why don't more people want to make a difference?
We can demand that our government, all of it from the president down to the town council members, do the job that we've put them there to do. A start would be for anyone who is a registered voter who is registered either (R) or (D) to change thier registration to (I). If we want them to work for our vote, we can't assure them so many votes before they've even proved themselves. I understand that the (D)'s aren't likely to do this being that their party is in power. Same old, same old. The (R)'s should do it anyhow. We can vote for who we want but we shouldn't be handing them votes when they haven't been doing their job.
Also, being that it is same old, same old, how about making it a point to vote no incumbents. If we are to get change, we need to change the people who have been entrenched in our government for way, way too long.
We can continue with this my party, your party for generations if that's what a majority wants. It hasn't done a thing in the past to get our government to do the job they are supposed to do, and it won't do anything now, or in the future. We have to look at OUR government and the blueprint that the Founders created, to get it working in the way that it is intended to work. For the people, by the people.
If the arguments go back so far, at what point will a majority of the American people stand up and demand that the government run like the blueprint shows?
Should we just add Obama to the long list of presidents who does things wrong and recieves no consequence for doing so? We, the American people are always the ones who pay the consequences.
If I look at who else did whatever to whomever, then what? Sit on my hands some more like a majority of the American people?
What about, after all this time and looking at who else did whatever to whomever, we do something? We can stop the YA BUTs and the YA WELLs. That's the way that I'm looking at the situation. It seems like there are just too many Americans who would rather give the current administration a pass for what previous administrations have got away with. This is a vicious cycle. We will continue to suffer the consequences if we continue this distracting argument.
People really aren't interested in finally holding our government accountable, because they have a thing for Obama? Same old, same old, eh? If it's the same old, same old, why don't more people want to make a difference?
We can demand that our government, all of it from the president down to the town council members, do the job that we've put them there to do. A start would be for anyone who is a registered voter who is registered either (R) or (D) to change thier registration to (I). If we want them to work for our vote, we can't assure them so many votes before they've even proved themselves. I understand that the (D)'s aren't likely to do this being that their party is in power. Same old, same old. The (R)'s should do it anyhow. We can vote for who we want but we shouldn't be handing them votes when they haven't been doing their job.
Also, being that it is same old, same old, how about making it a point to vote no incumbents. If we are to get change, we need to change the people who have been entrenched in our government for way, way too long.
We can continue with this my party, your party for generations if that's what a majority wants. It hasn't done a thing in the past to get our government to do the job they are supposed to do, and it won't do anything now, or in the future. We have to look at OUR government and the blueprint that the Founders created, to get it working in the way that it is intended to work. For the people, by the people.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,118
Likes: 7
From: Burleson, Texas
So, here we have a case of the "YA WELLs".
If the arguments go back so far, at what point will a majority of the American people stand up and demand that the government run like the blueprint shows?
Should we just add Obama to the long list of presidents who does things wrong and recieves no consequence for doing so? We, the American people are always the ones who pay the consequences.
If I look at who else did whatever to whomever, then what? Sit on my hands some more like a majority of the American people?
What about, after all this time and looking at who else did whatever to whomever, we do something? We can stop the YA BUTs and the YA WELLs. That's the way that I'm looking at the situation. It seems like there are just too many Americans who would rather give the current administration a pass for what previous administrations have got away with. This is a vicious cycle. We will continue to suffer the consequences if we continue this distracting argument.
People really aren't interested in finally holding our government accountable, because they have a thing for Obama? Same old, same old, eh? If it's the same old, same old, why don't more people want to make a difference?
We can demand that our government, all of it from the president down to the town council members, do the job that we've put them there to do. A start would be for anyone who is a registered voter who is registered either (R) or (D) to change thier registration to (I). If we want them to work for our vote, we can't assure them so many votes before they've even proved themselves. I understand that the (D)'s aren't likely to do this being that their party is in power. Same old, same old. The (R)'s should do it anyhow. We can vote for who we want but we shouldn't be handing them votes when they haven't been doing their job.
Also, being that it is same old, same old, how about making it a point to vote no incumbents. If we are to get change, we need to change the people who have been entrenched in our government for way, way too long.
We can continue with this my party, your party for generations if that's what a majority wants. It hasn't done a thing in the past to get our government to do the job they are supposed to do, and it won't do anything now, or in the future. We have to look at OUR government and the blueprint that the Founders created, to get it working in the way that it is intended to work. For the people, by the people.
If the arguments go back so far, at what point will a majority of the American people stand up and demand that the government run like the blueprint shows?
Should we just add Obama to the long list of presidents who does things wrong and recieves no consequence for doing so? We, the American people are always the ones who pay the consequences.
If I look at who else did whatever to whomever, then what? Sit on my hands some more like a majority of the American people?
What about, after all this time and looking at who else did whatever to whomever, we do something? We can stop the YA BUTs and the YA WELLs. That's the way that I'm looking at the situation. It seems like there are just too many Americans who would rather give the current administration a pass for what previous administrations have got away with. This is a vicious cycle. We will continue to suffer the consequences if we continue this distracting argument.
People really aren't interested in finally holding our government accountable, because they have a thing for Obama? Same old, same old, eh? If it's the same old, same old, why don't more people want to make a difference?
We can demand that our government, all of it from the president down to the town council members, do the job that we've put them there to do. A start would be for anyone who is a registered voter who is registered either (R) or (D) to change thier registration to (I). If we want them to work for our vote, we can't assure them so many votes before they've even proved themselves. I understand that the (D)'s aren't likely to do this being that their party is in power. Same old, same old. The (R)'s should do it anyhow. We can vote for who we want but we shouldn't be handing them votes when they haven't been doing their job.
Also, being that it is same old, same old, how about making it a point to vote no incumbents. If we are to get change, we need to change the people who have been entrenched in our government for way, way too long.
We can continue with this my party, your party for generations if that's what a majority wants. It hasn't done a thing in the past to get our government to do the job they are supposed to do, and it won't do anything now, or in the future. We have to look at OUR government and the blueprint that the Founders created, to get it working in the way that it is intended to work. For the people, by the people.
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: Cypress
Turn my stomach---not any more than this---
Saudis---civil rights issues; most definitely---repression of Jews; most definitely---repression of women; most definitely---repression of Christians; most definitely
"What, you don't like the fact that our current president is legitimizing oppressive, thug dictators (in this, a prince/king) in the name of diplomacy?"
"This isn't improving this countries relations around the world. It's bending over to the rest of the world. Passivity is not the answer."
Personally, I fail to see much, if any, difference---oh, wait; the Saudis are our allies.
TSC
Saudis---civil rights issues; most definitely---repression of Jews; most definitely---repression of women; most definitely---repression of Christians; most definitely
"What, you don't like the fact that our current president is legitimizing oppressive, thug dictators (in this, a prince/king) in the name of diplomacy?"
"This isn't improving this countries relations around the world. It's bending over to the rest of the world. Passivity is not the answer."
Personally, I fail to see much, if any, difference---oh, wait; the Saudis are our allies.
TSC
EQUALS
SERVANT/MASTER
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: Columbia Station, Ohio
Where were these YA WELLS a while back? What makes this any different? Why give this instance more attention than the last dozen or so dealings with thugs, dictators, etc. Because it suited our needs then? Why the sudden urge for a conscience now? Why weren't we holding other admins accountable? Because it suited our visions and needs at the time?
You are calling this admin out now---but why didn't you do it say, 20-30 years ago---even 40 years ago? Why the big change of conscience? Was it "vested interests"? OR do we not want to admit that we are hypocrites? Been that way for quite some time, guys...
I agree with you Tom, but why didn't we take a stand on this decades ago? Why now the sudden jolt of conscience?
TSC
You are calling this admin out now---but why didn't you do it say, 20-30 years ago---even 40 years ago? Why the big change of conscience? Was it "vested interests"? OR do we not want to admit that we are hypocrites? Been that way for quite some time, guys...
I agree with you Tom, but why didn't we take a stand on this decades ago? Why now the sudden jolt of conscience?
TSC
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 0
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
I"m sure different people have different reasons for objecting to Obama's bowing to kings and getting kissy face with Latin American dictators, but try these on for size:
1) This is the straw that broke the camel's back.
2) We trusted other president's more (i.e., when they did something we did not like, we still felt they had America's best interest at heart).
3) We are in a war on terrorism and radical Islam - this is a bad time for the POTUS to project subservience to an Arab king.
4) We are doing little to generate new, economically feasible energy supplies that will benefit us in the near term - this is a bad time to empower a South American dictator.
5) Many of the people upset now were too young or not politically aware when it was happening before.
BTW, I reject your premise that other president's have not had to take their lumps from the American public when they have made blunders abroad.
IMO, the reason people are upset about this boils down to two things: Trust and timing.
We don't trust Obama yet, and the timing is BAD.
Many people are now worried about the direction this nation is heading. Maybe we did not like that direction when other presidents were taking us that way, but we felt there was time to turn around. Now, we feel like we are running out of time and want to change course.
Your point seems to be: "Other presidents and congresses took us down the wrong path. Therefore the fair thing to do is let Obama and this congress keep taking us further and faster down the path. Only those who have continually objected to going down the wrong path are allowed to object now, and they are over-ruled by numbers and the fact Obama won the election. Others who are trying to object now are hypocritical. Shame on you for speaking out against Obama!"
1) This is the straw that broke the camel's back.
2) We trusted other president's more (i.e., when they did something we did not like, we still felt they had America's best interest at heart).
3) We are in a war on terrorism and radical Islam - this is a bad time for the POTUS to project subservience to an Arab king.
4) We are doing little to generate new, economically feasible energy supplies that will benefit us in the near term - this is a bad time to empower a South American dictator.
5) Many of the people upset now were too young or not politically aware when it was happening before.
BTW, I reject your premise that other president's have not had to take their lumps from the American public when they have made blunders abroad.
IMO, the reason people are upset about this boils down to two things: Trust and timing.
We don't trust Obama yet, and the timing is BAD.
Many people are now worried about the direction this nation is heading. Maybe we did not like that direction when other presidents were taking us that way, but we felt there was time to turn around. Now, we feel like we are running out of time and want to change course.
Your point seems to be: "Other presidents and congresses took us down the wrong path. Therefore the fair thing to do is let Obama and this congress keep taking us further and faster down the path. Only those who have continually objected to going down the wrong path are allowed to object now, and they are over-ruled by numbers and the fact Obama won the election. Others who are trying to object now are hypocritical. Shame on you for speaking out against Obama!"
Last edited by dirt bike dave; Apr 20, 2009 at 09:50 AM.
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: Cypress
Where were these YA WELLS a while back? What makes this any different? Why give this instance more attention than the last dozen or so dealings with thugs, dictators, etc. Because it suited our needs then? Why the sudden urge for a conscience now? Why weren't we holding other admins accountable? Because it suited our visions and needs at the time?
You are calling this admin out now---but why didn't you do it say, 20-30 years ago---even 40 years ago? Why the big change of conscience? Was it "vested interests"? OR do we not want to admit that we are hypocrites? Been that way for quite some time, guys...
I agree with you Tom, but why didn't we take a stand on this decades ago? Why now the sudden jolt of conscience?
TSC
You are calling this admin out now---but why didn't you do it say, 20-30 years ago---even 40 years ago? Why the big change of conscience? Was it "vested interests"? OR do we not want to admit that we are hypocrites? Been that way for quite some time, guys...
I agree with you Tom, but why didn't we take a stand on this decades ago? Why now the sudden jolt of conscience?
TSC
He is playing partisan politics, the great uniter has become the great divider, he will have almost tripled the federal deficit if his budget and spending plans pass, the first thing he did was sign a bill with $8,000,000,000 in earmarks...then he said, no more earmarks. Well thanks, we got $8billion so we are good for a little while. How many of his nominees have had tax issues? Come on, Timmy G is the head of a department he couldn't be hired onto if he was a regular citizen. That's like putting a thief as a Police Chief, makes a lot of sense huh?
So far he has come through on his campaign theme, I'm HOPING for a CHANGE in administration sooner than 4 years LOL. We (conservatives) are not saying that everything done today is the fault of the Democrats, Bush was POTUSA for 8 years too. To blame everything on Bush is not the answer either. it's a fair share and you can only push so long until someone reacts. Unlike liberals, conservatives a much slower to anger and more tolerant to the pushing. Yet the Communist News Network with Susan Roesgen makes the protest of wasteful government spending out to be a conservative/right wing movement sponsored by Fox. It's not about the D or R, it's about not reading legislation before signing it and now listening to what the people who elected you have to say.
Everyone talks about Bush and his drunken sailor spending and a lot of conservatives are not happy with it. You also have to remember that those first 6 1/2 to 7 years of his term were very prosperous times for the majority of Americans. So many companies were making hand over fist profits, the huge number of Americans becoming first time home buyers, and the economic boom we were in. The American people were making the money....then we fell on hard times, the downward curve of the wave. People lost jobs and homes and now feel the crunch of the economy and they are pissed that they have to suffer while the government gets to decide who is "too big to fail". We are talking about $890,000,000,000 that is going all over and the wasteful spending in that bill (such as however many millions to the National Endowment of Arts, Resodding the National Lawn, and all the other pet projects/ear marks for pig odors etc...) pissed a lot of people off. Yet Rham "never let a good crisis go to waste" Emmanuel is pushing and pushing saying "we have to do something today" and sentors and house members called out the promised transparency and the big push they were getting to sign this bill without posting it to the public.
We are tired of using fear tactics to push legislation through, we are tired of appointing people with tax problems (which according to your own VP makes them "Unpatriotic") to cabinet positions, we are tired of the ever growing and overly abused welfare programs, and we are tired of the ever growing involvement of government in our daily lives.
We are a country with a government but the people currently in the White House are trying to be a government with a country.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: Columbia Station, Ohio
I"m sure different people have different reasons for objecting to Obama's bowing to kings and getting kissy face with Latin American dictators, but try these on for size:
1) This is the straw that broke the camel's back.
2) We trusted other president's more (i.e., when they did something we did not like, we still felt they had America's best interest at heart).
3) We are in a war on terrorism and radical Islam - this is a bad time for the POTUS to project subservience to an Arab king.
4) We are doing little to generate new, economically feasible energy supplies that will benefit us in the near term - this is a bad time to empower a South American dictator.
5) Many of the people upset now were too young or not politically aware when it was happening before.
BTW, I reject your premise that other president's have not had to take their lumps from the American public when they have made blunders abroad.
IMO, the reason people are upset about this boils down to two things: Trust and timing.
We don't trust Obama yet, and the timing is BAD.
Many people are now worried about the direction this nation is heading. Maybe we did not like that direction when other presidents were taking us that way, but we felt there was time to turn around. Now, we feel like we are running out of time and want to change course.
Your point seems to be: "Other presidents and congresses took us down the wrong path. Therefore the fair thing to do is let Obama and this congress keep taking us further and faster down the path. Only those who have continually objected to going down the wrong path are allowed to object now, and they are over-ruled by numbers and the fact Obama won the election. Others who are trying to object now are hypocritical. Shame on you for speaking out against Obama!"
1) This is the straw that broke the camel's back.
2) We trusted other president's more (i.e., when they did something we did not like, we still felt they had America's best interest at heart).
3) We are in a war on terrorism and radical Islam - this is a bad time for the POTUS to project subservience to an Arab king.
4) We are doing little to generate new, economically feasible energy supplies that will benefit us in the near term - this is a bad time to empower a South American dictator.
5) Many of the people upset now were too young or not politically aware when it was happening before.
BTW, I reject your premise that other president's have not had to take their lumps from the American public when they have made blunders abroad.
IMO, the reason people are upset about this boils down to two things: Trust and timing.
We don't trust Obama yet, and the timing is BAD.
Many people are now worried about the direction this nation is heading. Maybe we did not like that direction when other presidents were taking us that way, but we felt there was time to turn around. Now, we feel like we are running out of time and want to change course.
Your point seems to be: "Other presidents and congresses took us down the wrong path. Therefore the fair thing to do is let Obama and this congress keep taking us further and faster down the path. Only those who have continually objected to going down the wrong path are allowed to object now, and they are over-ruled by numbers and the fact Obama won the election. Others who are trying to object now are hypocritical. Shame on you for speaking out against Obama!"
No, it is not "shame on you for speaking out against Obama." I have no problem with that. My problem is, thought, why didn't more of us (I count myself in that crowd) speak out more vociferously BEFORE this happened? Why the sudden storm now? We all have been hypocritical for way too long...
I have seen pics of many US prz's meeting with many dictators---as one person comented earlier---"you do not negotiate with them, you assiassinate them." But, as they say in the song lyrics, "the beat goes on."
As for not trusting Obama, I myself have a natural distrust for quite a few politicians and prz's---from a long way back---that is OK, too. When we have blundered about things abroad, that is one thing, but to shake hands with Chavez---well, that is on the same level as Nixon meeting Mao, Rumsfeld shakig hands with Hussein, etc. Our collective stomachs should have turned quite some time ago.
Reagan bowed to Queen Elizabeth 2nd on the tarmac during his first international trip. No big deal there...
TSC
Last edited by Bluejay; Apr 20, 2009 at 03:33 PM. Reason: Please do not circumvent the language filter.
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: Cypress
No, it is not "shame on you for speaking out against Obama." I have no problem with that. My problem is, thought, why didn't more of us (I count myself in that crowd) speak out more vociferously BEFORE this happened? Why the sudden storm now? We all have been hypocritical for way too long...
I have seen pics of many US prz's meeting with many dictators---as one person comented earlier---"you do not negotiate with them, you assiassinate them." But, as they say in the song lyrics, "the beat goes on."
As for not trusting Obama, I myself have a natural distrust for quite a few politicians and prz's---from a long way back---that is OK, too. When we have blundered about things abroad, that is one thing, but to shake hands with Chavez---well, that is on the same level as Nixon meeting Mao, Rumsfeld shakig hands with Hussein, etc. Our collective stomachs should have turned quite some time ago.
Reagan bowed to Queen Elizabeth 2nd on the tarmac during his first international trip. No big deal there...
TSC
I have seen pics of many US prz's meeting with many dictators---as one person comented earlier---"you do not negotiate with them, you assiassinate them." But, as they say in the song lyrics, "the beat goes on."
As for not trusting Obama, I myself have a natural distrust for quite a few politicians and prz's---from a long way back---that is OK, too. When we have blundered about things abroad, that is one thing, but to shake hands with Chavez---well, that is on the same level as Nixon meeting Mao, Rumsfeld shakig hands with Hussein, etc. Our collective stomachs should have turned quite some time ago.
Reagan bowed to Queen Elizabeth 2nd on the tarmac during his first international trip. No big deal there...
TSC
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: Columbia Station, Ohio
Now he set the precedent...so what is the big deal? What else do you want me to say? The precedent had been set , and nobody had a problem with it at that time, so what is the deal?
TSC
Last edited by referee54; Apr 20, 2009 at 07:48 PM.