Dr. Lillian Glass, self-proclaimed "expert" in body language, analyzes President Obama greeting various world leaders and comes to the conclusion he is being subservient.
There are some things I'd like to say on the topic of Obama, but for the sake of the Paizo mods I'll leave it to saying that, while I in no way, shape, or form support the man, I don't think he's being subservient, just respectful.
Let me check with an equally authoritative source...
My tarot cards disagree.
My cards also have less of an agenda.
Let me check with an equally authoritative source...
My tarot cards disagree.
My cards also have less of an agenda.
Was that aimed at me or the OP?
Was that aimed at me or the OP?Let me check with an equally authoritative source...
My tarot cards disagree.
My cards also have less of an agenda.
Aimed at dr Lilian Glass.
Aimed at dr Lilian Glass.Was that aimed at me or the OP?Let me check with an equally authoritative source...
My tarot cards disagree.
My cards also have less of an agenda.
In that case, I agree with you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who gives a damn?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prof. Chaos says:
White Lightsocket Cheesegrater Stool.
This post brought to you by Prof. Chaos. May Chaos be with you...sometimes.
There are some things I'd like to say on the topic of Obama, but for the sake of the Paizo mods I'll leave it to saying that, while I in no way, shape, or form support the man, I don't think he's being subservient, just respectful.You in no way, shape, or form support the president of our country?
Lets just say I have issues with his ruling style, and think he should step down and let someone else run in the next election in his stead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are some things I'd like to say on the topic of Obama, but for the sake of the Paizo mods I'll leave it to saying that, while I in no way, shape, or form support the man, I don't think he's being subservient, just respectful.You in no way, shape, or form support the president of our country?
Being president isn't some magic "everyone needs to respect you" thing. It's the result of a media driven popularity contest. I don't even have any respect for the office. It's an oval shaped inanimate space.
I rarely have any respect for any politician, frankly. Whether he or she has the top job doesn't change that.
If they ever elect one worthy of respect, I might respect that person. Until then, and they havent the last three times, at least, nope. No free respect just because they won a job.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets just say I have issues with his ruling style, and think he should step down and let someone else run in the next election in his stead.
First off a president doesn't rule. Their actual power is pretty limited. Secondly whats he done that's so horrible? Of all the things outside the presidents control the economy is probably the biggest one, particularly when he can't do anything about it thanks to a gridlocked senate, a house in republican hands and a republican party willing to crash the entire country as long as Obama goes down with it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets just say I have issues with his ruling style, and think he should step down and let someone else run in the next election in his stead.First off a president doesn't rule. Their actual power is pretty limited. Secondly whats he done that's so horrible? Of all the things outside the presidents control the economy is probably the biggest one, particularly when he can't do anything about it thanks to a gridlocked senate, a house in republican hands and a republican party willing to crash the entire country as long as Obama goes down with it.
To be fair, the Dems ran congress for four years in the middle of all of this mess, and the economy was crumbling. This is a bipartisan pooch being screwed.
Lets just say I have issues with his ruling style, and think he should step down and let someone else run in the next election in his stead.First off a president doesn't rule. Their actual power is pretty limited. Secondly whats he done that's so horrible? Of all the things outside the presidents control the economy is probably the biggest one, particularly when he can't do anything about it thanks to a gridlocked senate, a house in republican hands and a republican party willing to crash the entire country as long as Obama goes down with it.
Have you looked at the policies he's tried to pass? I don't blame congress. I agree with the spirit of what he wants to do, but not the specifics of how he goes about it. Case in point, Obamacare. Health care reform and maybe even socialized medicine? That's good. His specific plan? Ugh.
Have you looked at the policies he's tried to pass?
Yes. However that does not enable me to look into your brain and see whether you're annoyed that he's trying to pass more big government or annoyed that he's selling out to the republicans with all the spine of a jellyfish. Neither one is inherently the right answer so i can look at his policies all i want, I'm not going to know which camp you're in.
I don't blame congress. I agree with the spirit of what he wants to do, but not the specifics of how he goes about it. Case in point, Obamacare. Health care reform and maybe even socialized medicine? That's good. His specific plan? Ugh.
Its the 1996 republican healthcare plan. It was all he could manage to get passed the republican house. It was that or nothing.
To be fair, the Dems ran congress for four years in the middle of all of this mess, and the economy was crumbling. This is a bipartisan pooch being screwed.
They had two years under bush, so they couldn't pass anything, and then 2 years with a senate threatening to filibuster anything that came to the floor. There were enough blue dog democrats to stop anything because of rules changes in the senate... they don't even make the senators get up and read the phone book anymore, all they have to do is phone in an intent to filibuster and everyone gets a snow day.
|
|
I don't blame congress. I agree with the spirit of what he wants to do, but not the specifics of how he goes about it. Case in point, Obamacare. Health care reform and maybe even socialized medicine? That's good. His specific plan? Ugh.Its the 1996 republican healthcare plan. It was all he could manage to get passed the republican house. It was that or nothing.
He didn't have to pass a Republican house to pass health care. In fact, every House Republican voted against the bill.
I don't like either party, think they both suck major ass, but let's keep the facts straight, hmm?
He didn't have to pass a Republican house to pass health care. In fact, every House Republican voted against the bill.
I don't like either party, think they both suck major ass, but let's keep the facts straight, hmm?
The facts are strait. The fact is that there are several DINOS (democrats in name only) who wouldn't go for either a one payer system or even a public option.
If you don't know why I'm saying something why don't you try ASKING instead of smugly insulting my honesty? Fine, I forgot when the republicans took over the house in relation to when the bill was passed. It doesn't change the fact that the bill is what it is for the reasons i outlined above: its all he was going to get passed. They tried for single payer, they tried for public option, it wouldn't fly.
Lets just say I have issues with his ruling style, and think he should step down and let someone else run in the next election in his stead.First off a president doesn't rule. Their actual power is pretty limited. Secondly whats he done that's so horrible? Of all the things outside the presidents control the economy is probably the biggest one, particularly when he can't do anything about it thanks to a gridlocked senate, a house in republican hands and a republican party willing to crash the entire country as long as Obama goes down with it.
+1,000,000
|
|
The fact is that there are several DINOS (democrats in name only)
Ah, yes, the myth of "one true way-ism" both sides have. Fact is, "Democrat" doesn't mean "Progressive". Do you think the average union member gives a crap about gay rights? Or the average black Democrat voter (see: Prop 8, Cali)? Do you think they care about the environment?
Nope, they care about what is best for them. Period. Just like any other voters. They just see the Democratic Party as the best vehicle to get what they want.
The "base" for the Democrat party is so diverse that it is foolish to ascribe a set of values they share. The party is a disparate group of special interests lumped under one umbrella.
Republicans tend to be more monolithic, but even they have a bit of disparity between social conservatives and strictly fiscal conservatives.
So, I pretty much disagree that the "facts" were "straight".
(And, as an aside, the only consistently successful Progressive president was a Republican...)
Have you looked at the policies he's tried to pass? I don't blame congress. I agree with the spirit of what he wants to do, but not the specifics of how he goes about it. Case in point, Obamacare. Health care reform and maybe even socialized medicine? That's good. His specific plan? Ugh.Lets just say I have issues with his ruling style, and think he should step down and let someone else run in the next election in his stead.First off a president doesn't rule. Their actual power is pretty limited. Secondly whats he done that's so horrible? Of all the things outside the presidents control the economy is probably the biggest one, particularly when he can't do anything about it thanks to a gridlocked senate, a house in republican hands and a republican party willing to crash the entire country as long as Obama goes down with it.
I wouldn't put too much stock in Congress' motives on this score.
The President warned us all recovery would take a long time, be hard, and take sacrifice. If you look at a lot of his plans, they do just that. They will do a lot of good in time. Congress wants to score big points and get re-elected by pointing out only the short-term hard part. They conveniently leave out the longterm benefits when they vote down or go on their rants. This will serve to get them re-elected, of course, and lay the blame for the debacles they create by blocking everything, at the President's feet. That's a win-win for those bozos, but don't think for a minute they are making any decision based on the merits or non-merits of those plans, or on the welfare of the rest of us.
Case in point: The supposed "Obamacare" (a thinly veiled bit of bigotry when you take into consideration the Klan associates who coined it). The other day in one of another of the scores of Republican debates we have to put up with each month, Mitt Romney claimed that the first thing he would do was get rid of Health Care reform, and that this would save the country about 93 million bucks. CNN, in their bogus "fact check," called that a "partial truth." Now, anybody will half a brain knows that a "partial truth" is a lie, particularly if somebody like Romney stands to gain the most powerful seat in the land by telling it, but I digress. The point is that, if the Health Care plan were rolled back right this minute, it would save 93 million in the short term. But what Romney failed to mention (quite intentionally, as liars are wont to do) is that billions in savings would be lost down the road if the plan were ditched. Remember, the meat of the plan does not kick in for another couple years (a bad compromise made with very bad people; read: Republicans and Blue Dogs).
What The President (I happen to believe that calling him just "Obama" as has been done since day one, is yet more bigotry; why would this screwed up country give a black president the respect he deserves, after all?) is guilty of, is being naive in thinking that more than a few Americans have the courage and wisdom to think about the longterm, or care about anything more than their next cheeseburger or widescreen TV (they don't). In fact, the only thing I can tell the average American thinks or cares about in the longterm is if he's going to get to keep hating people who are different from himself.
The New American Motto: "Give me your internet, your flat screen, your huddled football players yearning to breathe cash, the wretched refuse of my seething hate. Send pizza, and beer, and scandal. I took a dump on truth when you left it by my door!'
(And, as an aside, the only consistently successful Progressive president was a Republican...)
Can I assume you're jumping on the Reagan bandwagon with that last bit? I've heard that bit of mythology tossed out before.
FDR was quite progressive. Quite successful. Quite a Democrat. And ten times the president Reagan was.
|
|
(And, as an aside, the only consistently successful Progressive president was a Republican...)Can I assume you're jumping on the Reagan bandwagon with that last bit? I've heard that bit of mythology tossed out before.
FDR was quite progressive. Quite successful. Quite a Democrat. And ten times the president Reagan was.
Apparently history isn't your strong suit. Try Teddy Roosevelt. And FDR being "successful"? Thank goodness for Lend-Lease (the thing that actually got America working again, not the New Deal).
Have you looked at the policies he's tried to pass? I don't blame congress. I agree with the spirit of what he wants to do, but not the specifics of how he goes about it. Case in point, Obamacare. Health care reform and maybe even socialized medicine? That's good. His specific plan? Ugh.Lets just say I have issues with his ruling style, and think he should step down and let someone else run in the next election in his stead.First off a president doesn't rule. Their actual power is pretty limited. Secondly whats he done that's so horrible? Of all the things outside the presidents control the economy is probably the biggest one, particularly when he can't do anything about it thanks to a gridlocked senate, a house in republican hands and a republican party willing to crash the entire country as long as Obama goes down with it.I wouldn't put too much stock in Congress' motives on this score.
The President warned us all recovery would take a long time, be hard, and take sacrifice. If you look at a lot of his plans, they do just that. They will do a lot of good in time. Congress wants to score big points and get re-elected by pointing out only the short-term hard part. They conveniently leave out the longterm benefits when they vote down or go on their rants. This will serve to get them re-elected, of course, and lay the blame for the debacles they create by blocking everything, at the President's feet. That's a win-win for those bozos, but don't think for a minute they are making any decision based on the merits or non-merits of those plans, or on the welfare of the rest of us.
Case in point: The supposed "Obamacare" (a thinly veiled bit of bigotry when you take into consideration the Klan associates who coined it). The other day in one of another of the scores of Republican debates we have to put up with each month, Mitt Romney claimed that the first thing he would do was get rid of Health Care reform, and that this would...
I never said I wasn't willing to think in the long term, or go through a long recovery. That doesn't mean I have to agree with what the President's been doing. I don't. It has nothing to do with wanting change right now, and everything to do with wanting the right kind of change.
Apparently history isn't your strong suit. Try Teddy Roosevelt. And FDR being "successful"? Thank goodness for Lend-Lease (the thing that actually got America working again, not the New Deal).
Oh boy. Revisionist history story time everyone. Next you'll tell us the one about how Reagan's deregulations lead to economic prosperity for all in the 1980s.
|
|
Oh boy. Revisionist history story time everyone. Next you'll tell us the one about how Reagan's deregulations lead to economic prosperity for all in the 1980s.
Apparently history isn't your strong suit. Try Teddy Roosevelt. And FDR being "successful"? Thank goodness for Lend-Lease (the thing that actually got America working again, not the New Deal).
Unemployment didn't seriously start declining until 1940. There was a slight dip under 15% in '36, but it went back up in '38.
And what does Reagan have to do with me talking about Teddy Roosevelt?
Ah, yes, the myth of "one true way-ism" both sides have.
If you're going to rant, by all means, rant. But could you at least make it a rant at something someone has actually said?
I'm pretty sure that the existence of DINOS means i realize that the democrats aren't a united front. Your condescending diatribe is either a new height of satire or a delicious piece of irony because you're telling me the facts aren't strait while agreeing with me.
And, as an aside, the only consistently successful Progressive president was a Republican...
Lincoln?
I never said I wasn't willing to think in the long term, or go through a long recovery. That doesn't mean I have to agree with what the President's been doing. I don't. It has nothing to do with wanting change right now, and everything to do with wanting the right kind of change.
I hate to crush your hopes, but i think its the best change that its possible to get at the moment.
Obama resigning wouldn't do anything. Put anyone else in the same situation and the result would likely be exactly the same. The system is larger than one person, its designed to be slow, and unless obama gets a wildly different congress its going to be more of the same next term, and if the new guy got a democratic congress then obama could probably do just as well getting them to pass bills.
If you have a beat up jalopy in the Indianapolis 500 it doesn't matter who's behind the wheel. You're not gonna win. Switching drivers won't help.
This depressing message brought to you by Steven Colberts Prescott Pharmaceuticals.
|
|
Ah, yes, the myth of "one true way-ism" both sides have.If you're going to rant, by all means, rant. But could you at least make it a rant at something someone has actually said?
I'm pretty sure that the existence of DINOS means i realize that the democrats aren't a united front. Your condescending diatribe is either a new height of satire or a delicious piece of irony because you're telling me the facts aren't strait while agreeing with me.
And, as an aside, the only consistently successful Progressive president was a Republican...Lincoln?
Lincoln? Seriously? Who the hell knows what his domestic programs would have been, how he viewed labor in the U.S. or anything "Progressive"? A movement, I might add, that started 25, 30 years after he died.
Lincoln had a war to run, he didn't have time to be anything other than the Civil War guy.
Lincoln? Seriously?
Yes.
At the time, "Hey, Mayby we shouldn't allow people to force other people to work for them because they're darker than you are." was a very progressive idea.
|
|
Lincoln? Seriously?Yes.
At the time, "Hey, Mayby we shouldn't allow people to force other people to work for them because they're darker than you are." was a very progressive idea.
Simplistic at best. Myth Lincoln is so much more palatable than real Lincoln. Real Lincoln didn't have much use for blacks until he met Frederick Douglass, which was after the war started. Furthermore, even Obama recognizes that the Emancipation Proclamation was more a "weapon of war" than any kind of moral stance Lincoln took.
Obama does as he's told. Nothing more, nothing less.
Simplistic at best.
It gets the point across about as well as it can be gotten across. You really shouldn't insult people for not knowing history because they don't know what your opinion on a consistently successful progressive is.
Myth Lincoln is so much more palatable than real Lincoln. Real Lincoln didn't have much use for blacks until he met Frederick Douglass, which was after the war started. Furthermore, even Obama recognizes that the Emancipation Proclamation was more a "weapon of war" than any kind of moral stance Lincoln took.
The myth is that Lincoln wasn't anti slavery. People forget he was a politician in a two party system, and that the primary two step was already old hat when he was dancing it.
You move to the (right/left) to help make yourself stand out to your base during he primary and then step to the center as fast as you can. Douglas even called him out on it a few times.Of course stopping its expansion would lead to its eventual demise. Everyone knew it, that's why the south decided to try to get while the getting was good.
Again, pot, kettle. Been gone for nine months, came back, have read some of your posts, and you are quite condescending and insulting to people who disagree with you. Don't get your panties in a wad when someone who actually does know a thing or two returns to you what you've been dishing out.
Yes, but i don't use the condescending insults AS my argument. You can take out the turns of phrase you don't like and there's still something left connecting an idea in a rational way with the conclusion. If you take out your insistence that everyone but you is a moron you don't have anything left because your entire argument is based on that idea.
Did you have a different nick or something? I really don't remember you.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Unemployment didn't seriously start declining until 1940. There was a slight dip under 15% in '36, but it went back up in '38.
Non-coincidentally, when Congress rolled back the work-creating programs, the country went into a recession and unemployment soared. The economy began recovering when spending went up again.
|
|
Non-coincidentally, when Congress rolled back the work-creating programs, the country went into a recession and unemployment soared. The economy began recovering when spending went up again.Unemployment didn't seriously start declining until 1940. There was a slight dip under 15% in '36, but it went back up in '38.
There were other factors as well, but the economy didn't truly stabilize until we entered a period of heavy manufacturing to support Great Britain's war effort.
|
|
Again, pot, kettle. Been gone for nine months, came back, have read some of your posts, and you are quite condescending and insulting to people who disagree with you. Don't get your panties in a wad when someone who actually does know a thing or two returns to you what you've been dishing out.Yes, but i don't use the condescending insults AS my argument. You can take out the turns of phrase you don't like and there's still something left connecting an idea in a rational way with the conclusion. If you take out your insistence that everyone but you is a moron you don't have anything left because your entire argument is based on that idea.
Did you have a different nick or something? I really don't remember you.
Same nick, well over 7000 posts. Have had an account since late '07.
I just chose, in relation to my posts to you specifically, to combine the two. More efficient.
I deal with reality, not myths. One of the biggest being Democrats aren't the same criminal ass munches Republicans are.
While I think democrats are giant CAMS in the machine I don't think they're quite the same. There are degrees , I think the difference can be pretty big. I couldn't see a democratic congress voting for iraq for example. So while no, democrats are not going to fulfill my dream of returning the wooly mammoth to the alaskan landscape, they tend to get fewer (but not none) people unnecessarily killed and are a fair site better at protecting the environment these days. I realize I'm selling my soul but I wasn't using it and want to get something for it anyway...
I just chose, in relation to my posts to you specifically, to combine the two. More efficient.
You're not really combining them. You're using one as the other. If the insult isn't true then the argument doesn't follow.
ANY disagreement eventually comes down to "No, you're wrong, here's why" there's a science to explaining why someone is wrong and there's an art to doing i without insulting them. I realize that I'm far more Gallagher than Faberge on that latter front, but there is some substance to it under the verbal sparing.
When the 'here's why' is 'because you're an idiot' you've crossed over the line into an ad hom. Its also somewhat circular. They're an idiot because they hold idea X, idea X is so wrong its only held by idiots, therefore the person is an idiot, therefore idea x is only held by idiots.
|
As to your second point, um, did you have one? The end of slavery was inevitable, but it was only violent because a bunch of idiots in the South thought Lincoln was going to do something he probably had no intention of doing.
The Civil War was about a lot of issues, of which slavery was nowhere near the most important.
The Civil War was about a lot of issues, of which slavery was nowhere near the most important.
If it still goes further than this I'll start a new thread, but south carolina was pretty darn specific about why it was leaving, and the reasons are slavery slavery, slavery, slavery, the states rights to slavery, the fear that new states wouldn't allow slavery, other states not allowing southerners to take their slaves with them on vacation, other states not returning slaves tarifs, and an anti slavery president.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina
|
|
While I think democrats are giant CAMS in the machine I don't think they're quite the same. There are degrees , I think the difference can be pretty big. I couldn't see a democratic congress voting for iraq for example. So while no, democrats are not going to fulfill my dream of returning the wooly mammoth to the alaskan landscape, they tend to get fewer (but not none) people unnecessarily killed and are a fair site better at protecting the environment these days. I realize I'm selling my soul but I wasn't using it and want to get something for it anyway...
I just chose, in relation to my posts to you specifically, to combine the two. More efficient.You're not really combining them. You're using one as the other. If the insult isn't true then the argument doesn't follow.
ANY disagreement eventually comes down to "No, you're wrong, here's why" there's a science to explaining why someone is wrong and there's an art to doing i without insulting them. I realize that I'm far more Gallagher than Faberge on that latter front, but there is some substance to it under the verbal sparing.
When the 'here's why' is 'because you're an idiot' you've crossed over the line into an ad hom. Its also somewhat circular. They're an idiot because they hold idea X, idea X is so wrong its only held by idiots, therefore the person is an idiot, therefore idea x is only held by idiots.
First point. Dems did vote to go into Iraq. 39% percent in the House and 56% in the Senate. So, combined with Repubs, yeah, Iraq probably would have happened anyway (39% of Dems + probably 99% of Repubs - Paul pretty much votes against everybody as a reflex = lots of dead brown people.) You can argue that Gore may not have done it, but I'm sure even if Dems held the House, it was going to happen.
Second point: The only two even remotely "ad hom" arguments I've made are "seriously?" and "one true wayism". Using the term "DINO" suggests that you do think that anyone who thinks outside of a narrow box isn't "really" a Democrat, so I feel justified in that barb.
"Seriously" isn't calling you an idiot.
As far as my comments to the other poster, dude deserved it for immediately playing the Reagan card. Oh, and for basically saying the only way you can not respect Obama is to be a racist. and please don't tell me I'm reading too much into that.