| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Why? |
|
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648
|
Why would the leader of the free world bow to a tyrant, the king of Saudi Arabia? If he is just in awe of royalty, why did a handshake suffice for the Queen of England? And why did this not warrant even a mention in the MSM? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93696 |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Denise - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Bow, handshake, nod, wink or high-five - who cares - as long as he doesn’t poke them in the eye, head-butt them or punch them to the ground any greeting is fine by me. I think this was a case of overcorrection. After meeting the queen he was probably politely told that the correct greeting when meeting royalty was to bow so the next royal he met got the full Monty. A minor deviation from protocol and etiquette if you ask me, like using the wrong fork for the fish course - hardly an international incident.  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My understanding from what I have read, Grinch, is that the protocol for greeting royalty, unless you are a subject of that monarch, is a handshake. Only subjects bow or curtsy. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Protocol schmotocol. This is the 21st century not the 16th, nobody’s going to invade Prussia or Sudan because some bloke bowed when he should’ve shook hands. The old protocols don’t mean that much today, getting them a bit wrong isn’t the end of the world, or a matter of life and death like it once was and I think that’s a good thing. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think it may have to do with the weight of the kind of culture or simply how ceremonious the actual moment was. If it was a looser moment with the queen, why would you expect that he should be as strict about his manner of greeting, as he was before the king of Saudia Arabia, where perhaps it was a bit more ceremonious at the moment? In any case, it is not right to imply some kind of disrespect to one just because the greeting wasn't the same as with the other. Both were expressions of grace and respect. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I never said it was a matter of life and death or that invasion of another country might possibly result, Grinch. And the protocols, though they may be old, are still relevant in the 21st Century, as can be ascertained from their respective websites. It was just prior to a meeting of the G20, Ess, not a ceremonial event. No other head of state in attendance bowed to any other head of state. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make Denise. Am I missing something? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I simply would like to know why he did it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Sorry Denise, I can’t help you there, the best I can offer is a guess. |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
This is going to cause quite the storm amongst the middle American and Concervative types, is it not? You know... those of us who hopelessly cling to our guns and religion? Of course, I am not going to be the one to call him all of the names and say things like calling him worthless, because then people on here who feel freedom of speech is good only for those who use their speech will get off the topic and attack me. So, whatever you feel is what you wanbt to say, I probably agree.   But this one goes to eleven... |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Denise, hon, he's young. He's inexperienced. He's...our President. Right now, I'm even more hapless at explaining the experience of his presidency. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree with the balderdash part of it, although it seems that, in royal and high-classed circles, it is still regarded as fairly important, unbelieveable as it may sound. I was reading an article of why some members of the "upper class" in England were loathe to accept Diana as anything other than a commoner because of certain words she used, which EVERYONE who fits into the high society class knows that such things are clear no-no's. The article gave examples of the 'miscues' and I remember reading them and saying "huh? What's the big deal??" I guess for some folks it still is... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
In the book I want to write someday, entitled, "Everything you need to know has Been on Star Trek", there was an episode where captain Picard was chosen to arbitrate peace with a planet, which had been at war for centuries. Other mediators had tried before but failed because the rulers of the planet had one primary rule - the arbitrator had to greet them formerly in their native tongue without making an error. Since their language was very difficult to pronounce, everyone who tried had failed. Jean Luc did it successfully and they welcomed him to the planet to negotiate peace. One sound, one syllable incorrectly spoken would have resulted in disapproval. Star Trek....the voice of our time!!!  |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'll refrain from name calling Ringo, but I must admit my tongue hurts from biting it so much! I wish I could believe that it was due to his lack of experience, Karilea. But I tend to think he is a shrewd politician who knows exactly what he is doing at all times. Balderdash! That's always been one of my favorite expressions, Michael! All I can say is "beam me up, Scottie!" I feel like I am living in the Twilight Zone or some other kind of alternative universe in the past few months and I don't see it getting any better any time soon. 2010 and 2012 can't come soon enough for me. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I understand that you generally don't like Obama. I have no idea what advice he was given by his protocol folks. I have no idea if the "unmistakable bow" photographed in the American Thinker is in fact an unmistakable bow or something else. I am actually waiting to be upset. I wasn't particularly upset when President Bush was photographed literally holding hands and kissing the same guy because that was the local custom. Whatever my feelings about President Bush, and they were generally not good, I felt that he had a right to make his own decisions about these things. I have the same basic notion about President Obama. I'm in fact actually concerned about the guy's policy decisions, just as I was about Bush's. In the meantime, I'm not sure that I feel trusting about American Thinker as a trustworthy source until I have a look at two of their recent articles, "In Defense of Discrimination" and "The Soros Doctrine in Obama Foreign Policy." I look forward to reading them myself, but to me they sound as though the site is somewhat other than objective, and may even have some points to make at the expense of the truth. Maybe not, of course, but the objectivity seems questionable. And what, for heaven's sake is "The Soros Doctrine?" Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: Says it all really, doesn't it. .............. I agree Denise, in Obama's case (as in many others) age in years has nothing to do with experience or how savvy he is. He may be "young" but he's very smart, very aware. You are very lucky to have him. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We would be happy to share our luck with you, moonbeam. Actually, we will when his policies begin affecting your domicile...which they will. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You don't have to rely on the American Thinker's photos, Bob. There is also a video taken by a television crew, probably a local British crew, taken of the meet 'n' greet prior to the G20. Yeah, I remember all that hubbub when Bush was holding the arm/hand of the king when they were walking on the ranch during a visit. The press couldn't get enough of it. Bush's people said he was just helping the king traverse some unsteady terrain. It sounded plausible to me. But whatever, at least it wasn't a sign of submission as is a bow. I wish he were yours too, moonbeam. But as Michael says, our luck will soon make its way to you. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Didn't look that way to me. It looked like the customary arabic hand-holding between men, which is fine with me. It's a matter of custom and nothing else. The kissing is also an arab custom, which is fine with me. In both cases Bush had a right to determine his own approach to protocol, though his public relations seemed pretty lame. Hand in hand is not how you help someone over rough ground; there's not enough support, and you can't get your back into it if there's actually a need, can you? And what is the nice part of discrimination, anyway? And the Soros doctrine, What might that be? This [i]American Thinker[i] sounds like a real non mainstream media winner alright. If you're upset about Saudi Arabia, and I do think you have every right in the world to be upset about Saudi Arabia for many reasons, including the form of government you mentioned and the way they treat women, which I suspect might be as upsetting to you as much as it is to me, how about some thoughts about what sort of policy the U.S. should follow in relationship to that country? And toward the middle east in general. Bush, I believe, muffed his relationship with the Saudis, and Obama may be in danger of doing the same, though not by bowing. You may not have noticed, but after all this time in Iraq, we have managed to keep Iraqi oil off the market. Remember how the early war predictions said that we'd be paid back by the flood of Iraqi oil let loose on the market? No Iraqi oil, and it's probably the second largest reserve of oil in the world. Kept off the market while oil prices here went through the roof, money went into the pockets of oil companies and OPEC, with the Saudis at the head. I don't recall Bush raising any big fuss, but then we don't know if President Obama will either, and what the policy is going to be like there. Perhaps you might consider that this bowing brouhaha is a sideshow to distract us from the real issues over there about how we're going to deal with oil and energy policy? You might have something that will break your financial back to worry about. Mismanagement of the Saudis has already gone a long way in that direction so far, and continued mismanagement of the Saudis will probably not get us out of the energy bind we're in any more quickly. The faster we're off oil, the better. Hope everything's going splendidly with the grandkids. My wife and I are having a crop of grand-nephews and nieces show up and they are heart-meltingly wonderful. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
Actually Mike Mr Brown claims that he was the one who started Obama on this track - after all it's him (Brown) who is busy saving the world. Don't worry, we are being subjected to the same poker game that you are, but perhaps we don't have as much to lose . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I saw all the grandkids earlier today and all are doing fine, Bob. Thanks for the well wishes. And I'm glad that you are enjoying your crop of little ones! The American Thinker and their views on anything have nothing to do with my bringing this link here. Nor do the policies of Saudi Arabia, nor the oil situation. I wanted to show the video of Obama bowing to the Saudi king. In my opinion that is a sign of submission and not something that one head of state ever does to another. He is smart enough to know that. My question remains, why would he do something like that? And I don't agree with your assessment that there is a bruhaha about it going on. The MSM hasn't uttered a peep. Most Americans still don't even know it happened. Only a couple of alternative news organizations on the web reported it. The kind of news organizations that maybe Obama would one day like to declare a cyber threat to national security? He'd certainly have the authority to do so if that current bill is passed with its vague language. Moonbeam, maybe since Obama declared the EU the leader of the free world during his townhall in France (I wonder how many Americans heard that?), and said Americans had been arrogant, dismissive and even derisive in their attitudes toward Europe, maybe Brown is the real leader of the free world! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Actually that isn’t correct Denise, he’d have the ability to authorise the isolation of a government or critical infrastructure system or network that had been compromised by a cyber attack. The proposed bill is pretty clear on that point, you posted the relevant section in the other thread. The President - (2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network; |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, I read this as a sign of deference rather than submission. I would bow to quite a few people as a sign of deference, and have. If they think that it is submission, they are mistaken, and I think they would know that. Given the facts of the current oil situation, and the way that we are pretty much at the mercy of the oil companies and of OPEC and of Saudi Arabia in so many ways, I'd be willing to hear a case they we are in fact subservient and that we may be fooling ourselves. In which case, neither your dislike for the facts nor mine are very much to the point, and we've just fought a war to keep Iraqi oil off the market, to keep oil scarce, to keep OPEC and the Saudis in an obscene position of power. This is no doubt somehow the fault of the Democrats. Myself, I think there is something to be said for the scenario I painted in the paragraph just above, albeit somewhat exaggerated. Alas, not so exaggerated as I would hope it might be. Do you know anything about Prince Bandar, sometimes jokingly called Bandar Bush? |
||
|
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
quote: If you are right Denise then you really have something to be worried about! |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The wording is too vague, Grinch, and gives too much authority into the hands of one man with no checks and balances. Does your U.K. version give such authority to the Prime Minister? It's a shame that the politicians in Washington keep us dependent on foreign oil, Bob. It certainly doesn't have to be that way. I think I may have heard the name of the Prince, but I'm not familiar with him. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If you mean would the Prime Minister have the authority to remove the compromised government or critical system from the internet Denise, then yes, he could authorise that. He could also authorise the isolation of any private network that was found to be the source of an attack on a government or critical system. It would be stupid not to give someone that power. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, what I mean Grinch, is it codified in your law explicity giving him the authority to proclaim a cyber emergency or threat and then to limit or shut down internet systems, with no checks and balances on his decisions and actions? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, The Brits take great and justifiable pride in their constitution and their rights, as great as we do here. But I suspect that you make a mistake when you think of it as a written one. The Brits feel their constitution is the stronger for not being written down in a single document, as ours is, and can give you a very good argument about that. Their notion of checks and balances is pretty real as well, but not, as I understand it, as formal as is ours. In order to get a good answer from Grinch you'll probably have to work around this American notion that it all has to be written down to get the sort of answer you're looking for. I can't say for sure, since I'm from the U.S. as well, but I think this may be some of the source of your difficulty in getting the sort of information you're looking for. Of course, I may just be looking foolish, as well, which goes very well with the new outfit I'm looking for, for all the spring shindigs. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes, he explained it in the other thread, Bob. Their form of government is more like a business model with the Prime Minister essentially being the CEO of that business. You don't look foolish at all, Bob. And I'm sure your new outfits will be most suitable for your Spring shindigs! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Followed the news today, Denise? Power grid, Russians, Chinese, etc.? If they didn't do it, they'd be absolutely idiotic not to; it's cheap and effective methodology for crippling an industrialized and information intense country. In the same way that we'd be silly not to be able to carry out proportionately less effective attacks against them because they are less centralized at this point. I think. It's not that I think that your suspicions may not have some sort of basis in terms of an attack on privacy (The Atlantic Monthly was writing Cover Stories about this as far back as 1968 or 1970, by the way); it's that we need to make plans to cope with the realities of this stuff after pretending there was nothing to it for almost 40 years. You have a perfect right to be distressed. Blaming Obama for saying that it's time to deal with it simply doesn't make much sense. You didn't believe the first 40 years worth of messengers; and now, suddenly, this one is is tyrant for reminding you of the truth when you can't escape it? You act as if the threat was new and as if you knew nothing about it, and had no chance to contribute to the discussion. Car 54 where was you? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm not against safeguards and measures to protect against cyber threats and attacks, Bob. I just think that the proposed legislation needs to be cleaned up a bit so that it doesn't give such broad unchecked authority to one man, the President. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Grinch explained that that wasn't the case, and how, and gave examples, didn't he? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
From what Grinch says, the President is still restrained by law. Granted, after what the last president did with his assurances about being restrained by law (about wire-taps, for example), I can see why you might not want to trust any President, ever again. And that's part of the damage that needs to addressed and undone in this administration; and it may not be possible to undo damage that deep and lasting very quickly at all. It will probably take at least a few decades of administrations, Democratic and Republican, acting honorably, to get things back on track. Or we may not be able to recover at all. The whole country was very badly wounded, I think, domestically and abroad. I think it very important we get this right. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Congrats, Bob. The streak continues.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The editing, Balladeer? If that's what you mean, I didn't catch it, and I am sorry. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If you mean something other than the faulty editing, you'll need to be specific. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I meant working Bush into a reply. That pointing finger MUST be getting tired by now, surely!  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You still manage to comment on Carter, Mike, with apparent venom. I don't feel I am a better man than you are, and I find it unlikely that Carter might be charged with war crimes or crimes against humanity at this late date in a war crimes tribunal. Nor are there still decisions to be made yet as to whether he might be tried for murder. Manufacturing an unnecessary war on fabricated charges and then looking for reasons to stay in it by itself would be reason enough to remember him. But it's most important not to allow other people to forget what happens when you allow neoconservatives to control the government and to make it over into their image of what government should be like: Controlled by the executive branch (do you remember the phrase "unitary executive"? and the efforts of the vice-president and the president to concentrate power in the hands of the executive branch? Do you remember "signing statements" that attempt to undercut the law making authority of the legislature that were such a frequent part of the President's signing ritual? These were attacks on the balance of powers in the constitution, and should be remembered as clearly as FDR's ill considered attempts to pack the Supreme Court. We forget these intrusions on our liberty, by left or by the right, at our peril. Whatever my admirations are for FDR, and I have many of them, this should not be forgotten. And the efforts of President bush were on what seem to my mind to be a much grander scale. If I can remember the flaws of a personal hero who died before I was born, what do you suggest my policy should be for somebody whose flaws I consider to be substantially more egregious, and which I am uncertain that our democracy will survive? And when was the last backhanded slap I heard you make at a Democratic President or Vice-President currently out of office? Whatever the length of my criticism of the former President Bush, it has been at least eight years shorter than that, hasn't it? Considering the amount of venom being poured on the head of the current President, much of it without attribution, I consider it a bit confusing when you feel that enough has been said, with attribution and references, about our Last President. I'm afraid that "The pointing finger" (the phrase is yours in this case, from the posting above. From the FitzGerald translation of Omar Kayyam, I think. "The moving finger writes, and having write, moves on..." If I've pegged it incorrectly, all corrections appreciated.) will continue to deployed where I feel it appropriate, as in those cases in which responsibility is being transfered without having been first acknowledged as to origins. In this spirit, I commend the line directly following the one you make reference to in The Rubiyyat. Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough, Bob, but it would appear we have met the moving finger that doesn't move on. I find it interesting that, whenever I used to mention Slick Willie, I got a barrage of "Get over it. He's not the president any more", and yet some reference to Bush seems to show up in a large percentage of your posts, whether relevant or not. That's your right. I simply gave you the acknowledgement of remaining true to your plan. I understand that, whatever goes wrong with Obama's platforms, will somehow be the fault of Bush. A wide variety of Bush's platforms, not to mention the state of the current housing market, can be dated back to Clinton - but, to mention that, draws the "get over it" reprisals so I say, for those who have difficult time commenting without working GW into it, "get over it". Happy Easter, Bob.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No, though if you're willing to document clearly, as I would have to agree also, and give President Clinton the appropriate title — President Clinton, in this case, I would be interested. The nickname you use is derogatory, as you well know, and belies the pretense of adult discussion. Accepting an invitation to talk without that respect would be a sham, which is why I had trouble with our discussions before. But if you are interested in talking about this sort of thing, I think I have considerable to learn from such a discussion and would be happy to talk. I have no need to defend everything President Clinton or even the Democratic Party did, so it should be an interesting discussion indeed. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No, though if you're willing to document clearly, as I would have to agree also, and give President Clinton the appropriate title — President Clinton, in this case, I would be interested. The nickname you use is derogatory, as you well know, and belies the pretense of adult discussion. Accepting an invitation to talk without that respect would be a sham, which is why I had trouble with our discussions before. But if you are interested in talking about this sort of thing, I think I have considerable to learn from such a discussion and would be happy to talk. I have no need to defend everything President Clinton or even the Democratic Party did, so it should be an interesting discussion indeed. And, as much as you would appear wish to frame History as if it began when the current President took office, all the Brave cries of "Get over it!" in the world will not erase a single word of it. As the Rubiyyat says. Thank you for the Easter wishes, Mike. Mine to you as well. Bob Kaven |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
