Yurt
Gold Member
the fact obama gave a mere head nod to the queen and a full bow to a muslim king speaks volumes....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the fact obama gave a mere head nod to the queen and a full bow to a muslim king speaks volumes....
Really ... can you read the minds of the "others"? If so, enlighten us, because it seems that since all the focus has been placed on Obama no one even asked the "others".
If this had happened with Bush in office (surprised it didn't) the right would be crying for war and the left whining about how Bush screwed up, now it's Obama it seems the roles have reversed. Here's the thing, why not look at a middle ground here and consider that?
why do you insist on coming up with your own theories and then when asked about how those theories can be accurate given the facts, you deflect and ask me to consider the middle ground? if you can't answer the questions, just say so.
i don't care about what the right allegedly would have done, i care about the facts.
fact:
obama bowed down to a muslim king
fact:
no other head of state bowed to the muslim king
fact:
obama is the first US president to bow down before a muslim king
fact:
the white house lied about it by trying to claim obama reached down with "two" hands when in fact obama bowed down with only one hand.
there is no middle ground, the whitehouse lied, tried to cover it up. those are the facts.
I did address these, but due to a lack of lateral thinking you have ignored them. The lies of the White house I addressed much early "really, the White House lied? That's odd."
why do you insist on coming up with your own theories and then when asked about how those theories can be accurate given the facts, you deflect and ask me to consider the middle ground? if you can't answer the questions, just say so.
i don't care about what the right allegedly would have done, i care about the facts.
fact:
obama bowed down to a muslim king
fact:
no other head of state bowed to the muslim king
fact:
obama is the first US president to bow down before a muslim king
fact:
the white house lied about it by trying to claim obama reached down with "two" hands when in fact obama bowed down with only one hand.
there is no middle ground, the whitehouse lied, tried to cover it up. those are the facts.
I did address these, but due to a lack of lateral thinking you have ignored them. The lies of the White house I addressed much early "really, the White House lied? That's odd."
Yup yup -- spot on Kitten. I think the rightys have become so accustomed to the White House lying to them that they can't recognize the truth when it hits them -right- between the eyes.
But this conversation has become redundantly boring. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we could have this discussion with the rightwing extremists about President Obama shaking the hand of a pipsqueak King. But the extremist's have offered no proof, none, nada, that they have any evidence that anything other than a big man shook hands with a little man.
But if the righty's ever do come up with anything other than a rightwing extremist's opinion, let me know -- I'll be waiting on a different thread.
the fact obama gave a mere head nod to the queen and a full bow to a muslim king speaks volumes....
Yurt, krotch, Pub, C, et al.: We have all been well aware from the beginning of this thread that U.S. conservatives consider President Obama's greeting a diplomatic faux pas. You people have attached all sorts of meaning to it ranging from simply "it's just not done" to "Obama just openly gave authority to the king."
It has also been obvious that neither the world press nor Saudi citizens been reluctant to express their opinions on what President Obama did and said during his visit to Europe.
None of them, however, have attached any significance to the president's greeting.
Were your interpretations accurate, they would be a topic of great discussion elsewhere in the world.
They aren't.
Therefore, as I have previously said, your accusations are false and amount to nothing more than a tempest in a tarradiddle teacup.
Perhaps y'all should move on to claiming that the president was speaking in code to his otherworld masters at the Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn when he said, "That's a wild thing. It's like a dragon-looking thing." and asked, "Are there any wild things here? I just want to make sure."
Why is it important that the president determine for certain whether or not there are any "wild things" -- "dragon-looking" things, in particular -- inside the gates of the White House? Are they connected to the Somalian pirates? Or is that an inside joke about Republicans that he shares only with certain ticketed guests to the Executive Mansion?
You know, he actually roared at those poor innocent little kids. Isn't that a violation of protocol -- maybe even felony child abuse?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Newspapers mean nothing, they are not news at all, just tools of propaganda. Who owns them and what do the people who own them own, stocks, corporations, farms. What are the holdings of the papers or what corporations own papers.
I can't wait until the day that newspapers vanish. Thank god for the Internet.
yes because non of the internet sources are corrupt, biased.....or do the biding of their employers....not to mention people just making shit up in the basements....
I can't wait until the day that newspapers vanish. Thank god for the Internet.
yes because non of the internet sources are corrupt, biased.....or do the biding of their employers....not to mention people just making shit up in the basements....
You don't waste paper on the Internet like you do with newspapers. The only thing useful for newspapers = packing and pee rags. We shouldn't support dinosaur organizations. Especially when they are nearing extinction.
yes because non of the internet sources are corrupt, biased.....or do the biding of their employers....not to mention people just making shit up in the basements....
You don't waste paper on the Internet like you do with newspapers. The only thing useful for newspapers = packing and pee rags. We shouldn't support dinosaur organizations. Especially when they are nearing extinction.
my guess is the internet burns more energy that printing a newspaper.....
but your original argument was corruption and bias.....how is the internet going to stop that....same people different medium....not to mention the crackpots....
Then they will tax the shit out of it as well!I can't wait until the day that newspapers vanish. Thank god for the Internet.
You don't waste paper on the Internet like you do with newspapers. The only thing useful for newspapers = packing and pee rags. We shouldn't support dinosaur organizations. Especially when they are nearing extinction.
my guess is the internet burns more energy that printing a newspaper.....
but your original argument was corruption and bias.....how is the internet going to stop that....same people different medium....not to mention the crackpots....
I never made that argument of corruption and biases. More like i hope the newspaper industry vanishes in thin air.
Newspapers mean nothing, they are not news at all, just tools of propaganda. Who owns them and what do the people who own them own, stocks, corporations, farms. What are the holdings of the papers or what corporations own papers.
so anyone that writes or edits for a newspaper is corrupt and only writes what the head of the coroporation says to write....would that apply to all media sources then.....
funny how you want me to change my thinking, yet someone posts something you don't agree with and its trolling.....
Actually, he was trying to attack your post not mine, what makes it an epic fail is that you and he agree but he didn't see that.
Newspapers mean nothing, they are not news at all, just tools of propaganda. Who owns them and what do the people who own them own, stocks, corporations, farms. What are the holdings of the papers or what corporations own papers.
so anyone that writes or edits for a newspaper is corrupt and only writes what the head of the coroporation says to write....would that apply to all media sources then.....
So you are saying newspapers are completely unbiased, never have a political view point, never print a story to influence a stock or a public policy. You believe they are completly neutral and if its printed its a fact and we should act accordingly?????????