The Guardian: The question that flummoxed the great orator

[Stan Shannon]

Ilíon wrote:

American citizens do not bow to princes! American officials assuredly do not bow to princes!

Apparently, this is some of the "change" we were all supposed to hope for. I suppose bowing and scraping will be part of the curriculum for American students from now on.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Ilion]

Stan Shannon wrote:

The truth is that just as Bush could do nothing correctly, Obama can do nothing wrong. Those in control of spin, aside from those few with sufficient intellectual honesty to at least acknowledge the obvious, will make sure of that.

Amusingly, The Guardian is the British version of the NYT.

[Stan Shannon]

Ilíon wrote:

Amusingly, The Guardian is the British version of the NYT.

Some of the British press, at least, still appear to have a smidgen of journalistic integrity left. There is none to be found anywhere in the US. There is a tightly controlled leftist intellectual cabal in control of the democrat party, the educational institutions, the news media, and much of the entertainment industry. One can only wonder who they are all actually answering to.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Lost User]

None of that I presume. More like following etiquette guidelines by exercising common courtesy. You should read nothing into any act of bowing. Perhaps the concept of "while in Rome..." is relevant? Anyhow, using terms like "We're great, you suck." is arrogant and will not win you many friends.

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

You should read nothing into any act of bowing.

To an American bowing to some political authority is the most offensive gesture one could be expected to make. Our entire revolution was about not being required to do that. It sort of defines us as a people. Why can't that be respected by the rest of you? Just checking around, I found this[^] picture. Is Bush bowing? Or lowering his head enough for the old guy to get the medal on? Either way, it is offensive enough. But Obama has gone far beyond that.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Anyhow, using terms like "We're great, you suck." is arrogant and will not win you many friends.

I already have all the friends I need. I will never think of my country as being a nation among equals. If the rest of the world didn't suck, so many people would have never made the nearly suicidal effort to get here to build this country in the first damn place. I have no desire to re-integrate into it as an equal. To do so is the grossest imaginable insult to the people who built the US. Obama and his minions can kiss my butt.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Well practiced? Yes. Indicative of some innate intellectual depth? Hardly.

Nor is it indicative of a lack of same. Dutch Reagan was the epitome of the ability to deliver a speech brilliantly - and he was the architet of his administration's triumphs and failure - but he had no particular ability to speak off the cuff without pausing for ers and umms and backtracking as much as Obama does. The ability to deliver a speech well is a good thing for a politician to have. And it is unfortunate that since Reagan the Republican party has not been able to come up with a candidate for President who could do so. But, per se, it does not win you elections - ask Eugene McCarthy, or Adlai Stephenson both of whom were brilliant public speakers both with written material and off the cuff. Let us focus on what Obama does and leave his use of the teleprompter to those who cannot comprehend the more important matters.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Ilíon wrote:

American citizens do not bow to princes!

Obviously you have never been introduced to the queen.

Ilíon wrote:

American officials assuredly do not bow to princes!

If we take Bush as our example, American officials kiss princes and hold their hands. Why do you waste our time with such pettiness? Have you nothing important to say?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Ilíon wrote:

I'm mocking the worship of the Obamaessiah

As Christian said, you make yourself out to be a fool, not Obama.

Ilíon wrote:

That mocking thses things provokes such anger in fools such as you is also always a good thing

I'm not sure you have ever made me angry, Troy. You've made me laugh -at you, not with you - many times. Bored me often, possibily irritated me with your constant links to other people's opinions when you have nothing to say for yourself, but actually angry? Possible, I suppose, but I can't remember it.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

One can only wonder who they are all actually answering to.

Maybe Eisenhower is still alive. :~

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Nobody is suggesting that the United States should be "Europe version 2". As such, neither should you consider yourself superior to the rest of the world, and vice versa. Thus the question of equality is only relevant if you are comparing like with like.

Stan Shannon wrote:

Obama and his minions can kiss my butt.

But would they want to :-\

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Maybe Eisenhower is still alive.

Hey, I'm willing to believe anything at this point.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

I'm willing to believe anything at this point.

I've noticed.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Nor is it indicative of a lack of same.

But one wonders when the great intellect will actually make itselk known. Dispite a rather lackluster life in terms of actual accomplishments, we keep being told that he is some kind of intellectual giant among men. Well, I want to see actual evidence of it. Sure, he is the very living embodiment of liberal intellectual principles, but that doesn't mean squat to me.

Oakman wrote:

Dutch Reagan was the epitome of the ability to deliver a speech brilliantly - and he was the architet of his administration's triumphs and failure - but he had no particular ability to speak off the cuff without pausing for ers and umms and backtracking as much as Obama does.

I seem to recall that he was actually rather glib.

Oakman wrote:

The ability to deliver a speech well is a good thing for a politician to have. And it is unfortunate that since Reagan the Republican party has not been able to come up with a candidate for President who could do so. But, per se, it does not win you elections - ask Eugene McCarthy, or Adlai Stephenson both of whom were brilliant public speakers both with written material and off the cuff.

I think any speaker will do better when acutally voicing the things they believe in. The problem with republicans is that they are trying really hard not to offend anyone becuase of how it will be used in the media. But, point taken, there are no great conservative orators in public office these days. Obama, for his part, actual speaks quite articulately when talking about how wealth needs to be redistributed, or how the US sucks, or some such collectivist mantra that he is more comfortable with. It is when he tries to portray himself as some kind of moderate centrist that he has problems finding the right words.

Oakman wrote:

Let us focus on what Obama does and leave his use of the teleprompter to those who cannot comprehend the more important matters.

Sorry, but my ethnic propensities prevent me from rising to that level of maturity. These assholes picked the ground to fight on, and I intend to do everything I can to oblige them. I read this post on a site dealing with similar subject matter, and it summarises my feelings quite eloquently: I am already tired of all the manufactured excitement

[Stan Shannon]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Nobody is suggesting that the United States should be "Europe version 2".

I think that is essentially exactly what is not only being suggested, but demanded. Otherwise, why would there be so much international angst over, hostility towards, and fear mongering about any of the traditional principles of American civilization otherwise known as 'conservatism'.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

we keep being told that he is some kind of intellectual giant among men.

Maybe you should spend more time making up your own mind and less watching Rachel Madow?

Stan Shannon wrote:

Sure, he is the very living embodiment of liberal intellectual principles, but that doesn't mean squat to me.

With that attitude in place, it seems unlikely that anything he says or does will impress you - which I find curious since you seem to agree that he is the epitome of the kind of President you admire - even though you don't agree with his goals.

Stan Shannon wrote:

These assholes picked the ground to fight on, and I intend to do everything I can to oblige them.

Then, by every thing I ever learned about tactics, you have already lost.

Stan Shannon wrote:

I am already tired of all the manufactured excitement about every utterance of these liberal chowder heads.

A perfect example of someone bound and determined to lose. Who will he convince? Not those committed to the left, certainly. Nor does he need to convince someone like you. The group in the middle - Reagan Democrats, if you will, will be turned off by his churlish diction and focus on the unimportant. If he is an example of the best the conservatives have to offer, there is no reason to worry about survival until 2010; with opponents like him, Obama Democrats will maintain their majorities without a problem. My hope is that reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-intentioned, clear-eyed centrists will lead the reaction to Obama, giving us reason to hope that, for instance, the census will not be perverted in time for the 2012 elections.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

modified on Sunday, April 5, 2009 1:21 PM

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

Just checking around, I found this[^] picture.

But you didn't find this one[^]? It seems to me that a little bowing is far less offensive to American mores than this public display of affection.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Lost User]

Stan Shannon wrote:

not only being suggested, but demanded

Then you should resist that perceived demand unless there are very good historical reasons that suggest otherwise. Perhaps ties to the old countries are still strongly felt by a number of your fellow countrymen which suggests your view above [quote] If the rest of the world didn't suck, so many people would have never made the nearly suicidal effort to get here to build this country in the first damn place [/quote] may not be the whole story. Perhaps your traditional American principles needs a wholesale review as nearly all are as imported from those old countries just like much of your Common Law statutes.

[Lost User]

Ahh! you found a use for the spittoon then? ;P

[Rob Graham]

Oakman wrote:

If he is an example of the best the conservatives have to offer, there is no reason to worry about survival until 2010; with opponents like him, Obama Democrats will maintain their majorities without a problem. My hope is that reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-intentioned, clear-eyed centrists will lead the reaction to Obama, giving us reason to hope that, for instance, the census will not be perverted in time for the 2012 elections.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Maybe you should spend more time making up your own mind and less watching Rachel Madow?

I don't even know who that is. But he is and has been promoted as quite the gifted intellect.

Oakman wrote:

With that attitude in place, it seems unlikely that anything he says or does will impress you - which I find curious since you seem to agree that he is the epitome of the kind of President you admire - even though you don't agree with his goals.

I do admire his, and the dmocrats in general, committment to those who put them into power. They never compromise, they never give up, they never relent, but possess a single minded devotion to the accomplishment of their agenda. I wish the republicans had that kind of loyalty to their base.

Oakman wrote:

Then, by every thing I ever learned about tactics, you have already lost.

Yeah, I know. Probably explains why the celts ended up on real estate that no one else wanted. We just can't help ourselves.

Oakman wrote:

My hope is that reasonably intelligent, reasonably well-intentioned, clear-eyed centrists will lead the reaction to Obama, giving us reason to hope that, for instance, the census will not be perverted in time for the 2012 elections.

Your hope isn't all that different from what was just tried. McCain was about as centrist as you could get, and was a war hero to boot. The only small bone he even tossed in the direction of conservatives was Sarah Palin who was immediately demonized as some kind of extremist yet could not have been more representative of traditional mainstream American values. My hope is that conservatives continue to hold on to the base of the republican party. Refusing to yield, refusing to acknoweledge that there is any thing even remotely extremist about promoting the values and the traditions of American civilization as it has always been understood throughout our entire history. 2010, 2012, 3012, the date doesn't matter to me. The left will fail. The American people will tire of Obama, Pelosi and the liberal agenda soon enough. It is inevitable, and conservatives should be there as the only legitimate alternative left standing when that happens. No compromise, no apologise, no caveats, just fiscal and social conservatism as it has always been understood by Americans.