Sorry, why is whether Obama bowed to the Saudi King an issue again?

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, May 22, 2017 08:37
VIEWED: 24995
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, April 13, 2009 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

What is the providence of the kissy-face photo?

That would be by way of Adobe Photoshop.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 13, 2009 2:03 PM

Head nod does not = a full fledged bow to at the waist. Nice try.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, April 13, 2009 3:22 PM

For those of you who see Obama purposefully bowing to the Saudi king, why did he do it? Do you think he is beholden to the Saudi king for some reason? Do you think Barack Obama idolizes the Saudi king for some reason? Or is it simply that he was an idiot, and if this last, has Obama behaved like such an idiot on any other foreign visits? I don't see that he has.

If it was a bow, it was a really weird-ass bow. I've certainly never seen a bow like that, except maybe on Faulty Towers or at a grade school level piano recital. A secret Muslim bow, perhaps, only not so secret?

If I hadda guess, it looks as if he nearly fell over or lost his balance at least, like as if the rug slipped as he stepped on it, something, and the "bow" was his way of recovering. Y'know, trying to look cool/I meant to do that, sorta thing.

But really, if he did bow, what does it mean to y'all?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 13, 2009 3:33 PM

Why ? I got no idea why, but he most definitely did bow.

I point again to the Brokaw, Charlie Rose video, saying they really don't know who this Obama character is....

KWICKO

Monday, April 13, 2009 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I point again to the Brokaw, Charlie Rose video, saying they really don't know who this Obama character is....

I'm not sure, but I *think* he's the President of the United States. At least that's what I've heard... Not really sure why Brokaw can't figure out who he is. No wonder he retired from reading the news; he can't keep up any more!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTHONYT

Monday, April 13, 2009 4:48 PM

Hello,

I personally believe that any insinuation that this bow has any special significance beyond a bow... is unsupported fantasy.

At first the criticism of the bow appeared to be aimed at the White House public relations division, which declared it NOT a bow. Well, it's a fucking bow. For whatever reason, there it is.

But to then take the logic leap that the bow means anything greater than, "Respectful hello to you, sir," is without merit.

This unmerited logic leap has been insinuated by comments like, "We don't really know who this guy is," which further insinuates that he may be something horrible, somehow bow-related.

Now, Auraptor and other commentators are free to declare that they didn't mean to insinuate anything at all. That this is merely a criticism of White House misinformation and spin. But I have the distinct impression that there is an implication in the criticism that goes beyond, "He bowed, what a gaffe."

For mine own part, this is a non-issue. The only issue I have with the bow is the issue being made of the bow.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

STORYMARK

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I point again to the Brokaw, Charlie Rose video, saying they really don't know who this Obama character is....

Your favorite go-to clip when you've got no point, and just want to troll.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

KWICKO

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:13 PM

Quote:

But to then take the logic leap that the bow means anything greater than, "Respectful hello to you, sir," is without merit.

This unmerited logic leap has been insinuated by comments like, "We don't really know who this guy is," which further insinuates that he may be something horrible, somehow bow-related.

The "secret bow" conspiracy seems to hinge on the idea that Obama really IS a "secret Muslim" ("See?! I TOLD YOU SO!!!"), or that he's bowing his fealty to the Saudi King, showing the world - secretly, of course, because you really mustn't say these things out loud - that America is subservient to Saudi Arabia and OPEC, just as it always has been.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CITIZEN

Monday, April 13, 2009 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The "secret bow" conspiracy seems to hinge on the idea that Obama really IS a "secret Muslim" ("See?! I TOLD YOU SO!!!"), or that he's bowing his fealty to the Saudi King, showing the world - secretly, of course, because you really mustn't say these things out loud - that America is subservient to Saudi Arabia and OPEC, just as it always has been.

If it's subservient due to Oil, then that's different. Oil is the good religion, Islam is the bad one. Look I'll let George Bush Snr explain it:

AURAPTOR

Monday, April 13, 2009 7:27 PM

Story

How is that remotely a troll post ?? The point is crystal clear. WATCH the gorram video! You're being childish and immature on purpose, for no other reason but to be obtuse and dismissive. You gave no basis to ignore the Rose / Brokaw video, other than I'm the the one posting it. Give credible reasons why you disagree, or grow the hell up.

KWICKO

Monday, April 13, 2009 8:37 PM

Quote:
You gave no basis to ignore the Rose / Brokaw video, other than I'm the the one posting it. Give credible reasons why you disagree, or grow the hell up.

C'mon, Rappy, tell me you've never dismissed a source I've posted, just because it was *ME* posting it.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, April 13, 2009 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Story

How is that remotely a troll post ?? The point is crystal clear. WATCH the gorram video! You're being childish and immature on purpose, for no other reason but to be obtuse and dismissive. You gave no basis to ignore the Rose / Brokaw video, other than I'm the the one posting it. Give credible reasons why you disagree, or grow the hell up.

Um, Obama's positions on the various issues Rose/Brokaw bring up were available from Obama's website throughout the campaign. Though it's possible that R/B are completely out to lunch on this, I rather got the impression that their conversation was about the MSM coverage of Obama during the campaign--in that context "we" know next to nothing about him, the MSM focusing on anything and everything except policy. But elements within the conservative movement thought it would further their cause to present these snippets of the Rose/Brokaw interview to foment suspision about Obama's "real identity."

It's really

sad, and AURaptor, you should stop it.

Knowledge of Obama's positions has been available to anyone who is genuinely interested for years now.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, April 13, 2009 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Why ? I got no idea why, but he most definitely did bow.

Oh, I missed this one. So you have no answer as to "why" he bowed, but the more interesting question, the one you CAN answer is, "What does it mean to you if he did bow?"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

KANEMAN

Monday, April 13, 2009 10:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Why ? I got no idea why, but he most definitely did bow.

Oh, I missed this one. So you have no answer as to "why" he bowed, but the more interesting question, the one you CAN answer is, "What does it mean to you if he did bow?"

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

He should not have bowed. Every Sand-Dancer on earth wacks off to the video of Obama doing so. Even before they beat their wives or rub their daughter's faces in the humps of camals.......Well, it's true..........

STORYMARK

Monday, April 13, 2009 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Story

How is that remotely a troll post ?? The point is crystal clear. WATCH the gorram video! You're being childish and immature on purpose, for no other reason but to be obtuse and dismissive. You gave no basis to ignore the Rose / Brokaw video, other than I'm the the one posting it. Give credible reasons why you disagree, or grow the hell up.

I have seen it. Back when you first latched onto it as your banner. My opinion remains unchanged, that it's meaningless. And in the context of this discussion - all it ammounts to is you Obama trolling.

And you telling others to grow up is cute.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 1:01 AM

AnthonyT:
Hello,
What is the providence of the kissy-face photo?
pizmobeach:
That would be by way of Adobe Photoshop.

Ehhh ... pizomo, you missed the boat on that one (as a minute doing a google search would have revealed). The source is CNN.

http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/player.swf?streamer=rtmp://isfm
s.cnn.com/vod&file=mp4:895/05281895&type=video&controlbar=none&autostart=true&width=480&height=324

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PHOENIXROSE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:33 AM

The photo is clearly photoshopped. Clearly. I mean, it's not even elegantly done. There's a sharp line cutting off part of Dubya's suit, and the mustache has been clumsily altered with the smear tool and looks like it's coming more from Dubya's nose than the king's face. I could have done a better edit in my sleep.
The video, now, does clearly show some cheek-kissing, which I assume to be some formality that's acceptable, along with hand-holding, where a stumble-bow is not. Trained I may be in the ninja art of photoshoppery, but these nuances of protocol aren't something I've studied.

[/sig]

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:27 AM

HK, I guess you're just as blind as the rest of them. These guys come right out and SAY they don't know, and you expect me to buy some crap on Obama's web site ? That stuff is nothing but P.R. What they were TALKING about is a history of how this guy , Obama, thinks, any sort of body of work that ANY one can look at and conclude where he gets his foreign policy concepts.

My god, just take what these guys are saying and listen for yourself. THEY'RE the ones who say it. Hell, don't blame me if you can't take the truth.

Quote:
"What does it mean to you if he did bow?

It looks ridiculous , for one. How he did it and the fact that he did it. He looks like a child , to be quite honest. I'd say it's a gaffe, but then we're reminded that Obama went to Harvard, and is simply too smart to gaffe THIS badly. He HAD to know what he was doing. It clearly means he meant to show subservience to the King, not just respect. Even Muslim reporters saw this for what it was, a bow, and THEY even admit confusion. No Muslim bows to any save for Allah, so they just must be tickled at the whole affair.

Very strange. But then, what do we REALLY know about this guy?

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:35 AM

Story, your insistence of ignoring the facts doesn't make me a troll, in the least. So sorry. You remain "unconvinced" simply because it was me who posted it, but the facts are there, undeniable. Seriously, grow up and get a spine. Dismissing hard cold fact as anyone 'trolling' is the most pathetic display of insecurity and intellectual dishonesty I've seen by the Left in a long time. And that's saying A LOT!

RIPWASH

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

This is what caught my eye - he was leaning somewhere between the two men. In fact, the king had to turn to his right (an action completed in this picture - originally the king was facing at right angles to Obama's 'greeting'.). It looks awkward to me - not like it was directed at the king at all.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

The whole thing looks a little strange, no matter what direction you're looking at it. In this photo, yes, it looks like he's bowing . . . somewhere. It's hard to figure out. But he's certainly not looking anyone in the eye. I don't think it would have been such a big deal if he simply bent over to see the man eye to eye, but this does look like a subservient bow because he goes pretty low and he's got his head down, eyes to the floor. I'll have to look at the video again to make a better decision. I could go along with Hannity and the like, but it's just a little too odd. If he did goof and stumble, the White House should admit it. If he did BOW even by accident or not thinking it through clearly enough, admit it as a gaffe and move on. One thing that is being said by Hannity is that if the bow is not such a big deal as some on the left are claiming, then why would the White House be denying it so adamantly? They could have said, "Yes, he was bowing to show his respect and blah, blah, blah." That makes a bit of sense, but still . . .

I'm not sure what happened here.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 11:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

My god, just take what these guys are saying and listen for yourself. THEY'RE the ones who say it. Hell, don't blame me if you can't take the truth.

In other words, take these guys' word for it, and don't dare question conclusions that Rappy the WonderDog agrees with!

Quote:
I'd say it's a gaffe, but then we're reminded that Obama went to Harvard, and is simply too smart to gaffe THIS badly. He HAD to know what he was doing. It clearly means he meant to show subservience to the King, not just respect.

Very strange. But then, what do we REALLY know about this guy?

Yes, since Obama is a Smart Person™, it's categorically impossible for him to ever do anything wrong. Oh, wait... Didn't Dubya go to Harvard as well?

There goes THAT theory...

As for what we REALLY know about this guy - well, obviously Rappy knows EVERYTHING about him. He knows everything Obama knows, exactly what his every intention is with every move he makes; he even knows how Obama FEELS!

How else can you explain claims that "he HAD to know...", "It CLEARLY means..."

Of course, it could also mean that this proves that Obama's a Muslim. Better get right on that - Fetch, Rappy, FETCH!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:20 PM

mike,
Why can't you just take what the old guard, Lib biased media says?
Why attack me? I just post the facts, I didn't make them up.

If you have an issue with Tom or Charlie, don't fire at me because it upsets you. Take a moment and think about what they are saying.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:25 PM

Because the far right biased American media often lies. Just like many of those that call it liberally biased, in order to further those lies and give them credence.

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
AnthonyT:
Hello,
What is the providence of the kissy-face photo?
pizmobeach:
That would be by way of Adobe Photoshop.

Ehhh ... pizomo, you missed the boat on that one (as a minute doing a google search would have revealed). The source is CNN.

http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/player.swf?streamer=rtmp://isfm
s.cnn.com/vod&file=mp4:895/05281895&type=video&controlbar=none&autostart=true&width=480&height=324

***************************************************************

Rue, yes check that video - it takes place indoors, while the image you posted is outside - so something is askew. Also, clearly the cnn footage shows them kissing on (face) cheeks, while the modified, 'shopped image has them doing a lip hummer. Physically speaking, in that still there's no place the Saudi's schnoz can go - hence, unreal. My boat is yet unmissed.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 1:50 PM

Hello,

I agree that the photo's providence is deeply uncertain, and that its depiction is very different from the CNN video provided.

On the issue of the Brokaw (sp?) quote, I have to say that Auraptor is taking the quote to mean what he wishes it to mean. They said, essentially, "we know very little about this man." And he is taking it to mean, "we know very little about this man, and hence anything could be true about him, like that he is a secret muslim and worships saudi kings."

Which is quite a leap from the one to the other. An unmerited leap, in my opinion.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:07 PM

Rap,

If you think I'm "taking a shot at you" for this, it's only because in one breath you claim that nobody knows anything about Obama, and in the very next breath you claim that "clearly" he "HAD to" be bowing in subservience.

You've seen the same video and pictures others have, and you're 100% certain of what YOU saw. Others are less so.

Now, either we know the man and his motives, or we don't.

What you're trying to do is take what you DON'T know about Obama, mix that in with something you've seen which you don't like, and make the veiled implication that there's very much more that WE don't know, but which YOU can devine because of your superior powers of observation. Or your already well-known biases against the man. Whichever is more applicable.

If we don't know the man, then we can have no idea what his motives and machinations really are. To say not only WHAT he's doing, but WHY, indicates that you somehow know far more about the man than anyone else - even the so-called "experts" who read the news from a teleprompter!

It's not an attack on YOU; it's an attack on your methodology. There's a difference.

Of course, for "attacking" you, I'm sure you'll show us all what a great debater you are by calling me a "fucking dumb ass" or an idiot, as you generally do when an argument isn't going your way.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:13 PM

And by the way, Rappy:

Quote:

Why can't you just take what the old guard, Lib biased media says?

Seriously? Really? You're going to sit there and ask me that question in what's supposedly a serious discussion?

I'll make a deal with you: I'll take the "liberal media" at face value and believe everything they say when you do the same.

Deal?

I thought you were supposed to be a "true skeptic"; I thought you questioned everything, especially if it came from the liberal media.

I guess that only applies when they say things critical of conservatives...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
...the photo's providence

Hey Anthony, when you say "providence" don't you mean provenance? I don't mean to get all grammar police on ya, just a big fan of the word provenance.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:10 PM

It's Browkaw and Rose TELLIING us what THEY think! It's not an issue of whether we agree or not, it's their own views! What the hell does face value have to do with anything here????? Nothing! That's what!

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Of course, for "attacking" you, I'm sure you'll show us all what a great debater you are by calling me a "fucking dumb ass" or an idiot, as you generally do when an argument isn't going your way.

Yeah, but he does that every single time, oh no wait I get it, nevermind...

AURAPTOR

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:21 PM

When the W H says there was no bow, when the rest of the world all saw him bow, that leaves us to wonder at his motives. Since a bow is seen by most modern cultures as a subservient gesture, and no other explanation is given, how else to explain it? Very odd , it is, if nothing else.

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:28 PM

"Since a bow is seen by most modern cultures as a subservient gesture ..."

Except when dubya does it ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:31 PM

Pizmo

What I posted was the one FREE original source on the internet. If you are willing to pay for material from various archives, there is more.

Despite how you want to confuse the issue - it DOES show Bush kissing Crown Prince (now king) Abdullah. Does it not ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Pizmo

What I posted was the one FREE source on the internet. If you are willing to pay for material from various archives, there is more.

Eh, pass. It's fake, it's unreal, it is in fact a dead parrot - just trust me (and PhoenixRose) on this. I trust you on the politics and chemistry, trust me on this.

How about this for an explanation:

The G20 summit was 'Bama's first one. It's one thing to wow folk with speeches, and another to hang with 19 other world leaders. He was under immense pressure. He must have been nervous. He was also very tired (did you see his schedule??) and he got his protocols mixed up. In short, he made a flub.

Since the rep party is on life support they will try and make something out of any thing they can. Which is perfect since it will be their own undoing - it will only attract equally desperate and dim characters to their party.

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:03 PM

So Bush has NEVER kissed Crown Prince Abdullah ?

Yes or No.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
...the photo's providence

Hey Anthony, when you say "providence" don't you mean provenance? I don't mean to get all grammar police on ya, just a big fan of the word provenance.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Hello,

You are quite right, Mr. Cavalier. :-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So Bush has NEVER kissed Crown Prince Abdullah ?

Yes or No.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Rue,

The question is more aptly phrased, "So Bush has NEVER kissed Crown Prince Abdullah on the lips as depicted in the photo?"

And the answer is probably no.

It's okay to be wrong about something. I'm often wrong. You're still a great gal with amazing insight and often well-researched arguments.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PHOENIXROSE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:12 PM

We're not trying to confuse the issue, Rue. I already said the video clearly shows cheek kissing. The tonsil-hockey picture, though, is a clumsy photoshop. I plan to make my living with that program, I know it when I see it. So while the video is a legitimate source, the photo is not. And that is what will confuse the issue, because those who can tell will question the legitimacy of all reports of any kind of kissing if there are images used that are not legit. Why do you think I can never take piratenews seriously? He's posted so many heavily altered images that there's just no credibility there. It's like the now-defunct Weekly World News, it's just laughable. You don't want to end up in that kind of category.
I'm trying to help you out, here. Don't get tetchy.

[/sig]

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:15 PM

Hello Auraptor,

"Since a bow is seen by most modern cultures as a subservient gesture..."

This premise is incorrect. A bow is as often a sign of respect as it is a subservient gesture. Peers bow to each other in many modern cultures. That is, equals bow to one another in a show of mutual respect.

Do you believe that Obama was demonstrating his subservience to a foreign head of state?

If you believe that, I can see you becoming alarmed.

However, I do not agree with this interpretation. I am much more inclined to believe he was making a gesture of respect. It is possible that this gesture was a breach of protocol, but I see no insidiousness in it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RIPWASH

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So Bush has NEVER kissed Crown Prince Abdullah ?

Yes or No.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

As Kwicko once said, Google is our friend. I tried finding any reference to your picture.

What I did find was the actual picture from which the one you posted is an obvious chop job. Why can't you admit that? Kissed him on the cheeks, yes. That's obvious from the video and is an acceptable greeting in most foreign countries.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/klipsch_fan/1411506021/

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:31 PM

Since people are making such a big deal about a 'bow' (which I saw as a loss of balance as Obama was leaning forward), it would seem they should be equally appalled about a kiss - ANY kiss - but especially an obviously intentional one that can't be written off as a stumble -- between the PRESIDENT and a foreign leader. Whether you accept one photograph or another of Bush kissing Prince Abdullah, either way - he kissed the guy.

In fact, they should be equally appalled at Bush's other bizarre behavior as PRESIDENT. Bush groping Merkel comes to mind. Or, if bowing is such a deep issue, they should be appalled by ANY bow Bush made, such as the one he made to the Pope.

The issue isn't the picture, it's the kisses (there were more than one), the bows, the gope.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So Bush has NEVER kissed Crown Prince Abdullah ?

Yes or No.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Rue,

The question is more aptly phrased, "So Bush has NEVER kissed Crown Prince Abdullah on the lips as depicted in the photo?"

And the answer is probably no.

It's okay to be wrong about something. I'm often wrong. You're still a great gal with amazing insight and often well-researched arguments.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I think Anthony's got it right on this one. I, too, thought the Bush picture was real. Now I'm definitely leaning towards it being a fake.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:38 PM

Hello Rue,

I understand your position, but if the picture is not the issue, then the issue should not include the picture. The picture you used to make your point (a forgery) undermines the point you were trying to make.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Auraptor,

"Since a bow is seen by most modern cultures as a subservient gesture..."

This premise is incorrect. A bow is as often a sign of respect as it is a subservient gesture. Peers bow to each other in many modern cultures. That is, equals bow to one another in a show of mutual respect.

Do you believe that Obama was demonstrating his subservience to a foreign head of state?

If you believe that, I can see you becoming alarmed.

However, I do not agree with this interpretation. I am much more inclined to believe he was making a gesture of respect. It is possible that this gesture was a breach of protocol, but I see no insidiousness in it.

--Anthony

Again, I think Anthony's on the right track.

I don't really care whether or not Obama "bowed" - or what it might signify if he did (respect? subservience? fear? hatred? worshipfulness? A mistaken belief that Abdullah was Korean, or Japanese?)

What I find disturbing is that AuRaptor, while maintaining that there is absolutely NOTHING we know about Obama, then also maintains that HE KNOWS what Obama's intentions and motivations are. "CLEARLY" this and "HAD TO" that. It smacks of a PirateNews post, with everything except the allegations that Obama is meeting Abdullah at Bohemian Grove later this week to dance naked around the chained male sex slaves.

In other words, Rappo has become what Hero would refer to as a "crazy talker".

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:43 PM

Hello,

To put it another way, if Auraptor was to post a forged picture of Obama on his hands and knees, pressing his lips to the Saudi King's shoe, it would undermine his point as well.

Even if he then claimed, "The point is that he bowed. Did he bow, yes or no?" I'd have problems with it. I'd tell him, as I tell you, "No, not like he did in the picture."

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:54 PM

Bush had been described by reputable news sources as having kissed Crown Prince Abdullah and then going for a walk hand in hand:

"Plenty of eyebrows were raised by the body language Monday between President Bush and the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah. When the crown prince arrived, half an hour late, Mr. Bush greeted him with what the Associated Press described as "a warm embrace and a kiss on both cheeks." Then the pair were photographed holding hands while walking through a field of bluebonnets."

So the objection that the only kiss that happened was indoors is without a doubt invalid.

Further, there are other orginal news source pictures showing Bush kissing other ME leaders in the exact same fashion as depicted in the photograph

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/11/world/main3699072.shtml?sour
ce=RSSattr=HOME_3699072

In addition, there are several photographs showing them very close (face to face) -

AND FINALLY - IT'S ABOUT THE KISSES, not the photo.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:59 PM

"To put it another way, if Auraptor was to post a forged picture of Obama on his hands and knees, pressing his lips to the Saudi King's shoe, it would undermine his point as well."

But if he were to find NEWS reports ABOUT Obama doing that, if he were to find other pictures of Obama doing the exact same thing - wouldn't you find it convincing for him to say - Obama does that ?

I would.

Any other conclusion is petty bias.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:02 PM

Hello Rue,

It was about the kisses. But then you clung to a photoshop forgery and posted in its defense.

Now it's all about the forged photo.

Try presenting five pieces of evidence at a homicide trial.

Then have the defense reveal that one of the pieces of evidence was planted by the police.

The trial is now no longer about a homicide. It's now about police corruption. The murderer goes free.

This isn't theory. This is history.

Own it, before it owns you.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"To put it another way, if Auraptor was to post a forged picture of Obama on his hands and knees, pressing his lips to the Saudi King's shoe, it would undermine his point as well."

But if he were to find NEWS reports ABOUT Obama doing that, if he were to find other pictures of Obama doing the exact same thing - wouldn't you find it convincing for him to say - Obama does that ?

I would.

Any other conclusion is petty bias.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Hello,

I have not found any evidence to support that Bush lip-locked the Saudi Prince. So no, there is no supporting anything for that forged photo.

Someone took a photo of one thing that did happen - Bush kissed prince on cheeks - and turned it into something that didn't happen - Bush osculated the Prince on lips.

They did this to evoke a sense of disgust in puritan minded Americans. We don't do that, and we certainly don't want our presidents doing that.

But kiss on the cheeks? Hell, my parents were Cuban. Kisses on cheeks are like handshakes in my culture. Try kissing a dude on the mouth, though, and you'll get a collective gasp of disbelief and disgust.

Just as you might if Obama bent over and tongued the King's dockers.

Neither of these things happened. There are no news reports supporting the picture provided. The picture is a forgery, and this would have blown over pages ago in the wake of a, "Ooops. Looks like that picture is a fake. Sorry guys, Bush only ever kissed the guy on the cheeks."

Then you could go on to say, "Not that location is the issue, of course. The issue is these gestures of respect made by former presidents to honor foreign cultures. They invoked no horror then, why now?"

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:10 PM

Meanwhile, AU laughs at how easy it was to stir up trouble over nothing... he's backwoods cagey!

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:10 PM

Sigh.

Have you proved it's photoshopped ? No.

Have you proved Bush doesn't do that kind of thing ? No.

Have you deflected the argument ? Yes.

Bully for you.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Sigh.

Have you proved it's photoshopped ? No.

Have you proved Bush doesn't do that kind of thing ? No.

Have you deflected the argument ? Yes.

Bully for you.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Hello Rue,

I suppose we are equally disappointed with one another. I am sitting here sighing that you don't acknowledge this (to me) obvious sticking point. It is to my mind this entrenched refusal to admit an error that deflects the entire issue and keeps the discussion from moving forward.

The very article you posted in support of the picture describes something very different than the provided photo. Your own evidence describes cheek kisses, not mouth kisses.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

Edited to add:

My conclusions so far:

1) Obama Bowed.
2) No evidence that bow was insidious.
3) Presidents often honor luminaries according to their culture.
4) Mouth kissing photo is a fake.

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:29 PM

I found sequences of Bush kissing the Saudi Prince. Unfortunately, all I can post are those from google caches, like this:

They are not 'obviously' photoshopped to me.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:39 PM

Hello Rue,

You are then arguing that the photo is correct, and that the article about the photographed event is mistaken?

You can make that argument. But since we know the provenance of the article and not of the photo, I think my skepticism is warranted.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:46 PM

I think this is all Dodd's fault.

Or Saddam's.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think this is all Dodd's fault.

Or Saddam's.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Hello,

I have a picture proving that it is not.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

PHOENIXROSE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Have you proved it's photoshopped ? No.

YES!
I can't claim expertise in a lot of things. I haven't deeply studied politics, protocol, history, physics, mechanics, etc etc etc. At best I have passable knowledge on such things. At worst I have only vague ideas. My area of study is GRAPHIC DESIGN. My most-used and most-studied program is PHOTOSHOP. This is ONE THING that I can speak about with vast knowledge and expertise. I have already pointed out the flaws in the image; just LOOK at it.
Dammit, Rue, I respect you for the most part, but you are damaging your credibility, at least with me, by clinging to a photo that I KNOW is faked. The video of kissing on each cheek is legit, the photo of holding hands is legit, the face-to-face photo is legit and is obviously the source for the lip-lock photoshop, which is NOT legit.
It's vastly important to use legitimate, unedited photos in order to keep credibility. I don't trust any "news" outlet that I have seen use clearly photoshopped images, I'm not going to trust yours any more than theirs. While I'm sure you didn't do the 'shopping yourself, and clearly weren't intending to post a falsified image, your bullheaded refusal to admit that one image isn't legitimate truly irritates me. Your point is supported by other sources you've posted, but undermined by a false one that you need to acknowledge, please.

[/sig]

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:57 PM

I think articles are sometimes worded diplomatically. It then says "Then the pair were photographed holding hands while walking through a field of bluebonnets", implying (though not saying) that they had not been photographed earlier.

I think MSM can be biased by what they publish and what they withhold. Note that though photographs of the two kissing were available, they did not run them (also further supporting the implication that no 'greeting' pictures were available).

It doesn't prove the picture was either real or fake. It doesn't prove the article was accurate or inaccurate. But I can point to intentional bias in the article. I'm not sure I can point to anything in the photo that would make me think twice.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIPWASH

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:59 PM

Please don't take this the wrong way, Rue, because normally I respect your opinion.

But your behavior over this photo is reminiscent of what you guys claim AURaptor of doing. Clinging to something that others are telling you is not true (the photo).

I won't say "clearly" or "obviously" to avoid getting myself in trouble with Kwicko , but c'mon Rue! There were several photographers there. When two dignitaries meet, it's a photo opp and there are photographers galore. And do photographers at events like this take one picture and then move on? No. They take a rapid succession of pictures. So any other differences in Bush's appearance may have been because it was a second later. But regardless of your take on it, the picture of the lip-lock definately looks fake to more than one person on this thread - like someone photoshopped the two by moving them closer together to make it appear as if they were kissing on the lips. The video doesn't show this action taking place at all. You can cling to the belief that it's untouched, but I really don't think so.

Aside from that, the kissing on the cheeks is not that big of a deal. I beleive it's common practice in Europe and in other countries. It was a minor issue at the time because that simply isn't done in American culture. It's not the norm, so it was questioned. As was the hand holding. That sure does look strange, but if it's a common custom elsewhere, it's harmless, so no biggie. Guys hugging comes to mind for some reason. It wasn't acceptable for men to show their feelings like that many years ago, but it's becoming more and more acceptable and is not uncommon anymore. It doesn't shock people. Just my take on it.

The Obama bow, as I stated before, looks awkward and clumsy. Something happened there and it would be better for someone at the White House or even Obama himself to say, "Look, it was a slip, I was tired, I saw something on the floor . . ." whatever. Don't just deny it, explain it if people are making a big deal out of nothing. Again, just my take on it.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Bush had been described by reputable news sources as having kissed Crown Prince Abdullah and then going for a walk hand in hand:

"Plenty of eyebrows were raised by the body language Monday between President Bush and the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah. When the crown prince arrived, half an hour late, Mr. Bush greeted him with what the Associated Press described as "a warm embrace and a kiss on both cheeks." Then the pair were photographed holding hands while walking through a field of bluebonnets."

Hello Rue,

Your quote from your source about your photographed event.

Now, the picture always looked wrong to me, but the very article you posted in defense of the picture calls it a lie.

It seems, though, that I will never convince you. I suspect that your pride is keeping you from seeing the truth. It is not unusual to see people who are usually right take a lot of pride in the correctness of their stance.

You are usually right, Rue. You have a reason to take pride in your accuracy and moral superiority in most instances.

This isn't one of them. If I find I am wrong, I will tell you so, Rue. But I think you're wrong, and I think a desire to be right is keeping you from seeing it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:05 PM

"obviously the source for the lip-lock photoshop"

I will defer to your expertise. I looked at the two photos closely and saw many differences - Bush's eyes and mouth open v eyes and mouth closed, the prince's neck being extended and beard jutting out in one photo v the other, for example. I looked for an obvious shortening of the photo, which would be there if the distance between the two was photographically chopped out. It wasn't here.

To you it may be 'obvious'. To me it isn't. But since you insist, you have the final say.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PHOENIXROSE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I looked at the two photos closely and saw many differences - Bush's eyes and mouth open v eyes and mouth closed, the prince's neck being extended and beard jutting out in one photo v the other.

All such thing can be altered with the smear or liquefy tool, or pasting and blending in other elements. I have done this many times, so I hope your deference to my expertise is genuine and not facetious.
The biggest problem for me is the hard line between the bodies of the two men. It's a clear indicator of a chop-job, though it has been cropped out in the 'series' you posted. Please stop being tetchy at me and LOOK at it.

[/sig]

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:25 PM

It was photoshopped, get over it. It's about a thirty second job, two minutes if you wanted to use GIMP.

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:39 PM

"The biggest problem for me is the hard line between the bodies of the two men." Uh - where ? No matter where I looked, I couldn't find that. All the photos I could find were cropped the same way.

No, I meant it - I wasn't being being techy. You (and Citizen and I forget who else) obviously have more experience with photo-altering.

And while this

and this

are obvious to me, the one I posted took a more exprienced eye than mine to see it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:09 PM

Blown up, with problem areas circled (not well, I had to use the mouse because the GIMP is shit and needs starting and restarting half a dozen times to get it to recognise my tablet. This seems an amateurish problem with many major GPL graphics packages, which is basically unforgivable).

There's a light area around the join, a sign that the faces have bee cut and lifted from a lighter background, and the join hasn't then been merged properly.

A big chunk of the head dress has been cut out, probably a marquee selection error.

The Windscreen has been chopped and duplicated, you can see part of the wiper has been duplicated and pasted lower down. It describes a fairly obvious triangle.

Further this image is clearly shopped from the one posted earlier. The eyes appear closed here, and open in the other, because a flesh colour has been overlayed. Look closely and the eye sockets and surrounding flesh are in the same position. Bush's hair is also identically positioned, you'd expect it to be slightly varied. Bush's mouth is also in the same position, but likewise has been partially hidden and adjusted with a flesh colour.

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 8:31 PM

So, can we agree that these are at least the equal 'offense' to the office of the president as Obama's 'bow' ?

bowing

bowing

personal fealty

personal fealty

strange \ inappropriate behavior

strange \ inappropriate behavior

strange \ inappropriate behavior

strange \ inappropriate behavior

strange \ inappropriate behavior

strange \ inappropriate behavior

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIPWASH

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:35 PM

If you feel you must post the same pics over and over again to make your point . . . it's a bit obsessive.

I'll agree with you on the strange behavior (flipping the bird, chest bump, etc). Not very Presidential.

That second picture you claim is "bowing" to the Saudi Prince, however, is again in a video that I've seen. He bent over to accept the medal being placed around his neck then looked down at the medal. Like most people do when accepting medals to make it easier for the presenter to place it. Not bowing in the way you're implying. If that were the case then all Olympians could be accused of bowing to the medal presenters.

The holding hands and kissing cheeks I've addressed and won't bother to do so again.

I don't know what to make of Obama's gesture, whether it was intentional or not. It's odd beyond words and if he or the White House doesn't feel the need to explain it, then we'll be questioning it for all eternity.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

CELLARDOOR

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:42 PM

Holy crap, the thread title changing is ridiculously annoying. It'd be nice if at least forum thread titles were what they appear, but maybe that's asking too much. They say nothing is what it appears, but one exception would be nice...

CITIZEN

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:51 PM

Bowing is a often a sign of respect not fealty.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:51 PM

This is too ruttin' funny!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

RUE

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:20 PM

"If you feel you must post the same pics over and over again to make your point . . . it's a bit obsessive."

I was saving people the trouble of scrolling. (Also, I had replaced one picture.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

That second picture you claim is "bowing" to the Saudi Prince, however, is again in a video that I've seen. He bent over to accept the medal being placed around his neck...

...also known as "bowing" to accept the medal...

I'm just sayin'.

Are you SURE that Obama wasn't just bending down to take Abdullah's hand in a warm handshake and embrace? I mean, are you really SURE?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:50 PM

Quote:

But kiss on the cheeks? Hell, my parents were Cuban. Kisses on cheeks are like handshakes in my culture. Try kissing a dude on the mouth, though, and you'll get a collective gasp of disbelief and disgust.

Even if you follow it up by saying, "I know it was you, Fredo. I know you betrayed me!"

(Sorry, it was the Cuba and kissing on the lips thing... brought back all that Godfather II imagery...)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think this is all Dodd's fault.

Or Saddam's.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Hello,

I have a picture proving that it is not.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

I'm still catching up with the latest developments in this post, but this one deserves a special mention, just for being so damed funny!

Anthony, if you can keep your sense of humor while chaos ensues all around you, you'll come out just fine. My hat's off to you for the funniest thing I've read or seen today!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 11:41 PM

By the way, I think I was the first one to post the Bush-kissing-Abdullah picture in this thread, and I thought it was real. Citizen's blown-up version has me convinced that it's a fake, like PhoenixRose and others claimed.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

That second picture you claim is "bowing" to the Saudi Prince, however, is again in a video that I've seen. He bent over to accept the medal being placed around his neck...

...also known as "bowing" to accept the medal...

I'm just sayin'.

Are you SURE that Obama wasn't just bending down to take Abdullah's hand in a warm handshake and embrace? I mean, are you really SURE?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Heck, Kwicko, I said several times I wasn't sure WHAT the guy was doing. I just looked too dang weird.

**Edit**
Besides . . . to me, a warm handshake would entail grasping the guys hand with both of mine (don't recall if Obama did that or not) and I'd only "bow" that low in order to do so if he was sitting in a chair. LOL

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

PHOENIXROSE

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:24 PM

'S all right, much as I personally adore the program, that is the trouble with living in a Photoshop World

Moving on, I still think it was a stumble. I mean a literal one.
And, no, he didn't use both his hands in the handshake. Which is good, as someone said earlier, because use of the left hand would have been a far greater gaffe than anything.

[/sig]

JAYNEZTOWN

Thursday, September 3, 2009 3:34 PM

So much for Secularism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/01/obama-hosts-ramadan-dinne_n_2
74596.html

Here is the full text of Obama's remarks:

THE PRESIDENT: Please, everybody have a seat. Thank you. Well, it is my great pleasure to host all of you here at the White House to mark this special occasion -- Ramadan Kareem.

I want to say that I'm deeply honored to welcome so many members of the diplomatic corps, as well as several members of my administration and distinguished members of Congress, including the first two Muslims to serve in Congress -- Keith Ellison and Andre Carson. Where are they? (Applause.)

Just a few other acknowledgements I want to make. We have Senator Richard Lugar here, who's our Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Where is Dick Lugar? There he is. (Applause.) Representative John Conyers, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. (Applause.) Representative Rush Holt is here. Thank you, Rush. (Applause.) Have we found you a seat, Rush? (Laughter.)

REPRESENTATIVE HOLT: I'm on my way to the train. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I got you.

We also have here -- Secretary of Defense Gates is here. Secretary Gates. (Applause.) Our Attorney General, Eric Holder. (Applause.) And Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius is here. (Applause.)

And most of all, I want to welcome all the American Muslims from many walks of life who are here. This is just one part of our effort to celebrate Ramadan, and continues a long tradition of hosting iftars here at the White House.

For well over a billion Muslims, Ramadan is a time of intense devotion and reflection. It's a time of service and support for those in need. And it is also a time for family and friends to come together in a celebration of their faith, their communities, and the common humanity that all of us share. It is in that spirit that I welcome each and every one of you to the White House.

Tonight's iftar is a ritual that is also being carried out this Ramadan at kitchen tables and mosques in all 50 states. Islam, as we know, is part of America. And like the broader American citizenry, the American Muslim community is one of extraordinary dynamism and diversity -- with families that stretch back generations and more recent immigrants; with Muslims of countless races and ethnicities, and with roots in every corner of the world.

Indeed, the contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country. American Muslims are successful in business and entertainment; in the arts and athletics; in science and in medicine. Above all, they are successful parents, good neighbors, and active citizens.

So on this occasion, we celebrate the Holy Month of Ramadan, and we also celebrate how much Muslims have enriched America and its culture -- in ways both large and small. And with us here tonight, we see just a small sample of those contributions. Let me share a few stories with you briefly.

Elsheba Khan's son, Kareem, made the ultimate sacrifice for his country when he lost his life in Iraq. Kareem joined the military as soon as he finished high school. He would go on to win the Purple Heart and Bronze Star, along with the admiration of his fellow soldiers. In describing her son, Elsheba said, "He always wanted to help any way that he could." Tonight, he's buried alongside thousands of heroes in Arlington National Cemetery. A crescent is carved into his grave, just as others bear the Christian cross or the Jewish star. These brave Americans are joined in death as they were in life -- by a common commitment to their country, and the values that we hold dear.

One of those values is the freedom to practice your religion -- a right that is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Nashala Hearn, who joins us from Muskogee, Oklahoma, took a stand for that right at an early age. When her school district told her that she couldn't wear the hijab, she pr

KWICKO

Friday, September 4, 2009 3:00 AM

And your point is...?

Mike

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, May 19, 2012 4:41 AM

Hey everybody!

I've got a fun game! When AURaptor posts a necro-issue from 4 years ago, instead of replying to his current post, let's all repost our replies to his posts from when they were--at least potentially--relevent!

I'll go first!

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Story

How is that remotely a troll post ?? The point is crystal clear. WATCH the gorram video! You're being childish and immature on purpose, for no other reason but to be obtuse and dismissive. You gave no basis to ignore the Rose / Brokaw video, other than I'm the the one posting it. Give credible reasons why you disagree, or grow the hell up.

Um, Obama's positions on the various issues Rose/Brokaw bring up were available from Obama's website throughout the campaign. Though it's possible that R/B are completely out to lunch on this, I rather got the impression that their conversation was about the MSM coverage of Obama during the campaign--in that context "we" know next to nothing about him, the MSM focusing on anything and everything except policy. But elements within the conservative movement thought it would further their cause to present these snippets of the Rose/Brokaw interview to foment suspision about Obama's "real identity."

It's really sad, and AURaptor, you should stop it.

Knowledge of Obama's positions has been available to anyone who is genuinely interested for years now.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:14 PM

Due to his utter disappointment in the GOP nominee, and Obama's strong necon response to all things middle east and moderate Republican economic policies, rappy has nothing substantive to say on the president. As we get closer and closer to the election we will be treated to a more frequent spew of Obama-the-Kenyan-Marxist-Muslim-revolutionary-whatever. As you say, HK, the right-wing puppet-masters are merely trying to make a northern elitist Mormom more palatable, and rappy.... sorry sod that he is... is more than happy to follow wherever they lead.

AND he's been spamming the board. But seeing as rappy has precious little to say about anything REAL in this "real-world-events-forum", I'm kinda with Niki on how we should respond. I think we should give our liberal sensibilities a rest, and realize that rappy is about like PN- maybe not as overtly crazy, but just as unreachable. I talk ABOUT rappy once in a while, and respond to him even less, and overall I think the fewer responses he gets, the better.

For those moments when we CAN'T resist, maybe we should just post our posts in a special thread called "FOR RAPPY", so as to keep his posts from clogging the top pf the board.

I would use this one, but it's too long.

NIKI2

Saturday, May 19, 2012 2:25 PM

Quote:
As we get closer and closer to the election we will be treated to a more frequent spew of Obama-the-Kenyan-Marxist-Muslim-revolutionary-whatever

Given I heard that several times from others (that the rightie wingnuts would come out from under their rocks and start going nuts here), and I wasn't here for the last election, I do note that

Quote:
he's been spamming the board

with nothing but "Obama bad" shit, so apparently that may be the case. It's awful early, and people keep bringing them back to the top, so this place has gotten downright boring. I'm really sick of seeing that go seh all over the top of the board all the time.

So I'm with Sig

Quote:
For those moments when we CAN'T resist, maybe we should just post our posts in a special thread called "FOR RAPPY", so as to keep his posts from clogging the top pf the board.

Ergo, I will start just such a thread, and we'll SEE how many can resist bringing his pigshit back to the top so maybe we can have some ACTUAL posts to respond to. Worth a try, tho' I have my doubts...

ELVISCHRIST

Sunday, May 21, 2017 7:07 PM

Partisans Bend to Label Trump's "Bow"

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Ummm...yeah, he did bow.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/20/politics/trump-saudi-bow-medal/

6STRINGJOKER

Sunday, May 21, 2017 8:28 PM

Yeah. He must have seen Star Wars too. Or maybe he caught an Olympic Medal ceremony once or twice in his life. That's what people do when they're receiving a medal. I think it's cute that the good people at CNN think you're all so stupid to believe that this

equals

And before you say "well Trump didn't need to bow because the guy was taller", Leia was on a platform herself and towered over Luke and Han.

Actions have different meanings based on the situation.

Now that we've got you're Liberal silly out of the way....

What did Trump receive a medal for from the Saudis, and why would he accept it is what I want to know. That's the question everybody, especially his supporters, should be asking Trump.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, May 21, 2017 8:43 PM

Trump was getting bling.

What the hell did Obama get ?

Embarrassed and owned, is all.

( thank for the thread revival. Like my old River = I can see you - sig )

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 21, 2017 11:39 PM

In reality, how subservient the President is to another leader is reflected in what policy a President imposes, not on whether he got a medal or bowed.

I find Obama's Saudi/ Mideast policies self-contradictory. In some instances he forwarded the Saudi's interests (destroying Libya, supporting anti-Assad terrorist/ Saudi proxies) but then he makes a deal with Iran .... that's that big weird policy raisin in a bowl of policy oatmeal. In retrospect, Saudis (and Israelis, BTW) seem to think that Obama was NOT their friend, despite the numerous deals and military assistance that they received.

Trump seems to be taking a different tack, but what he will do is yet to be demonstrated.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

1KIKI

Monday, May 22, 2017 1:13 AM

Quote:
Sorry, why is whether Obama bowed to the Saudi King an issue again?

I really should keep up with the msm more often, just to see what new tricks they're up to.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, May 22, 2017 1:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I really should keep up with the msm more often, just to see what new tricks they're up to.

It's not really all that important. They're not up to any "new" tricks. Just the same old tricks in a different wrapper. Easily identifiable patterns and behaviors, really, that can be predicted without even paying more attention than to see what other people are posting about on boards such as this.

It's why I laugh when T calls me ignorant and thinks he knows any more about what is going on than I do because he spends all day taking in the MSM BS.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, May 22, 2017 1:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I really should keep up with the msm more often, just to see what new tricks they're up to.

It's not really all that important. They're not up to any "new" tricks. Just the same old tricks in a different wrapper. Easily identifiable patterns and behaviors, really, that can be predicted without even paying more attention than to see what other people are posting about on boards such as this.

It's why I laugh when T calls me ignorant and thinks he knows any more about what is going on than I do because he spends all day taking in the MSM BS.

Do you mean new tricks as applied to Obama only, or in a more historical context - like how is Obama using new tricks not used before by others?
If applied more broadly, Obama is certainly using the DEEP STATE trick never previously used, or even thought of. And his unprecedented lingering around D.C. after his White House ouster is certainly new.

6STRINGJOKER

Monday, May 22, 2017 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I really should keep up with the msm more often, just to see what new tricks they're up to.

It's not really all that important. They're not up to any "new" tricks. Just the same old tricks in a different wrapper. Easily identifiable patterns and behaviors, really, that can be predicted without even paying more attention than to see what other people are posting about on boards such as this.

It's why I laugh when T calls me ignorant and thinks he knows any more about what is going on than I do because he spends all day taking in the MSM BS.

Do you mean new tricks as applied to Obama only, or in a more historical context - like how is Obama using new tricks not used before by others?
If applied more broadly, Obama is certainly using the DEEP STATE trick never previously used, or even thought of. And his unprecedented lingering around D.C. after his White House ouster is certainly new.

I wasn't referring to politicians, but the MSM in general. I was talking of a more historical context as well.

1KIKI

Monday, May 22, 2017 7:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In reality, how subservient the President is to another leader is reflected in what policy a President imposes, not on whether he got a medal or bowed.

It would be nice if, now and again, we got some straight-up news with our propaganda.

I don't think Trump has a 'policy' per se. And he seems to be the antithesis of an honest politician - the one who, once bought stays bought. He seems to be constantly renegotiating whatever was already negotiated.

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

ELVISCHRIST

Monday, May 22, 2017 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Drumpf was getting bling.

What the hell did Obama get ?

The exact same bling.

Look it up.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2