 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 03:44 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Care to mention who those congressmen are, or what those ideas might be? I seem to have missed that.
I didn't commit either to memory.
Well, the fact that it prevents tooth decay may have something to do with it.
Yeah, the steel industry was completely incapable of keeping fluoride from dumping into water supplies. So they hired experts to study the pollutant and they found it fights tooth decay when applied to tooth enamel. So now the steel industry and congressmen (who bowed to their pressure) have decided that it's OK for people to ingest fluoride because it fights tooth decay? And not only that, they decided to introduce this chemical in drinking water in places where it was not present before. Absolutely mindboggling. I would think environmentalists would be up in arms about this. Instead, they are too busy fretting about baby seals somewhere while humans are being forced to drink steel-industry pollution ... thanks to the federal government.
Fine.
What do you suggest we do instead?
You mentioned a few ideas about how insurance companies would be taking care of the problem themselves, though I'm still unclear on why they'd be doing this, or what muscle would be used to compel them to lose money on people who need health care that may not be profitable.
I'm sure it can be done. The fact is I haven't time to figure it all out on paper (my company pays me to do other types of work).
Were you arguing a liberal viewpoint during the Bush years? I don't recall.
Yes. Mostly about the Iraq debacle. I also found Bush to be rather undiplomatic and ignorant in foreign affairs and world history. However, I am now seeing the same failings in Obama - and even Hillary Clinton. She is surprisingly bad as secretary of state. I wrongly assumed her brains matched her ambitions.
so how's stiggy doing these days anyway?
Still battling.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1906 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:47 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Care to mention who those congressmen are, or what those ideas might be? I seem to have missed that.
I didn't commit either to memory.
Well, the fact that it prevents tooth decay may have something to do with it.
Yeah, the steel industry was completely incapable of keeping fluoride from dumping into water supplies. So they hired experts to study the pollutant and they found it fights tooth decay when applied to tooth enamel. So now the steel industry and congressmen (who bowed to their pressure) have decided that it's OK for people to ingest fluoride because it fights tooth decay? And not only that, they decided to introduce this chemical in drinking water in places where it was not present before. Absolutely mindboggling. I would think environmentalists would be up in arms about this. Instead, they are too busy fretting about baby seals somewhere while humans are being forced to drink steel-industry pollution ... thanks to the federal government.
Well, I'll grant you I haven't done a ton of research here, but from what I have read, research has been done, and the adverse effects of flouride are minimal, and are outweighed by the benefits. One such study I found can be found here, if you're interested: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm
Fine.
What do you suggest we do instead?
You mentioned a few ideas about how insurance companies would be taking care of the problem themselves, though I'm still unclear on why they'd be doing this, or what muscle would be used to compel them to lose money on people who need health care that may not be profitable.
I'm sure it can be done. The fact is I haven't time to figure it all out on paper (my company pays me to do other types of work).
Understandable. But, to my mind, the problem here is too serious to ignore, and something needs to be done. President Obama is offering an idea, and has opened up the debate so that all opinions can be heard. And other points of view have been considered and taken into account, and the plan altered accordingly.
We need to find a way to fix this problem, because leaving things as they are, to my mind, is unacceptable.
Were you arguing a liberal viewpoint during the Bush years? I don't recall.
Yes. Mostly about the Iraq debacle. I also found Bush to be rather undiplomatic and ignorant in foreign affairs and world history.
That's putting it mildly!
I'm curious...did you ever discuss this issue with Stiggy? He's been quite vocal in his disagreement with that point of view.
However, I am now seeing the same failings in Obama - and even Hillary Clinton. She is surprisingly bad as secretary of state. I wrongly assumed her brains matched her ambitions.
Out of curiosity, what led you to this conclusion? I'm just curious here, I promise not to debate this issue. I've heard very little on the subject, personally.
so how's stiggy doing these days anyway?
Still battling.
Really? With whom?
-- A2SG, good to know he's still entertaining someone, though.....
Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:48 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 04:44 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Well, I'll grant you I haven't done a ton of research here, but from what I have read, research has been done, and the adverse effects of flouride are minimal, and are outweighed by the benefits. One such study I found can be found here, if you're interested: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm
That's too much for me to read in a month. But in principle here, can you answer this: What if the government or its hired experts had told you that DDT was healthy for human beings? Or asbestos? Or agent orange? Or trichlorotrifluoroethane (this was a federally approved chemical I used to clean circuit boards with, now known to cause cancer). These are bad enough, but then they decide they are not only going to approve it - but place it in public drinking water supplies whether you object to it or not. IOW, you are being force-fed a known chemical pollutant. This doesn't bother you?
If flouride was so beneficial for mankind to be ingesting then it would be found naturally in the environment and it would not be necessary to add it to drinking water. Any study trying to justify people consuming fluoride is a load of crap, in my strong opinion.
Further, I lived through the 1980s Malathion dumping in California. This was the citrus industry getting into bed with the state (and a smaller degree federal gov.) to eradicate the medfly which threatened orange crops. What the state would do is designate an infested area and direct helicopters to dump Malathion throughout the area in the middle of the night. The designated areas were often residential (like where I lived) and they would fly directly over our homes fogging us with this poison. Homeless people were getting sick and showing up at Urgent Cares with vomitting and diarhea, but state officials said it was "psychological" because this bug poison was perfectly safe to have dumped on you. http://www.organicbugspray.com/malathion.htm
Understandable. But, to my mind, the problem here is too serious to ignore, and something needs to be done. President Obama is offering an idea, and has opened up the debate so that all opinions can be heard. And other points of view have been considered and taken into account, and the plan altered accordingly.
We need to find a way to fix this problem, because leaving things as they are, to my mind, is unacceptable.
That's putting it mildly!
I'm curious...did you ever discuss this issue with Stiggy? He's been quite vocal in his disagreement with that point of view.
I don't believe we ever crossed paths on it. I think we started to get into some debate on Bush but it didn't go far. I didn't consider Stiggy to be that big a defender of him. He seems to be a conservative first, and not a defender of all people who wear a Republican lapel pin.
Out of curiosity, what led you to this conclusion? I'm just curious here, I promise not to debate this issue. I've heard very little on the subject, personally.
A Secretary of State must be professional at all times. It is the ultimate diplomatic position. Yet Hillary jumped down the throat of a journalist who made a simple mistake (due to the language barrier) because Hillary was being defensive of her legacy. She also went to Europe and declared that the U.S. is the first and oldest democracy in the world. She has made other smaller idiotic statements that made me cringe which I don't recall right now. And Obama is being rather bufoonish as well, trying to schmooze the Iranians, dissing the British as "just another of the 180 countries out there" and bowing to the emperor of Japan.
Really? With whom?
Hype. I forget what they are arguing about.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1906 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 26th, 2009 03:50 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Well, I'll grant you I haven't done a ton of research here, but from what I have read, research has been done, and the adverse effects of flouride are minimal, and are outweighed by the benefits. One such study I found can be found here, if you're interested: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm
That's too much for me to read in a month. But in principle here, can you answer this: What if the government or its hired experts had told you that DDT was healthy for human beings? Or asbestos? Or agent orange?
For one thing, I'd do what I did above: search for research independent of the US government.
Or trichlorotrifluoroethane (this was a federally approved chemical I used to clean circuit boards with, now known to cause cancer). These are bad enough, but then they decide they are not only going to approve it - but place it in public drinking water supplies whether you object to it or not. IOW, you are being force-fed a known chemical pollutant. This doesn't bother you?
Not in this case, no. Because the chemical has proven benefits, with minimal adverse effects.
If flouride was so beneficial for mankind to be ingesting then it would be found naturally in the environment and it would not be necessary to add it to drinking water.
Well, if those who propose the idea of intelligent design are right, then you'd have a point. However, all you've done is provide evidence against intelligent design.
Any study trying to justify people consuming fluoride is a load of crap, in my strong opinion.
And you're entitled to it. Evian and Poland Spring exists to serve you.
Further, I lived through the 1980s Malathion dumping in California. This was the citrus industry getting into bed with the state (and a smaller degree federal gov.) to eradicate the medfly which threatened orange crops. What the state would do is designate an infested area and direct helicopters to dump Malathion throughout the area in the middle of the night. The designated areas were often residential (like where I lived) and they would fly directly over our homes fogging us with this poison. Homeless people were getting sick and showing up at Urgent Cares with vomitting and diarhea, but state officials said it was "psychological" because this bug poison was perfectly safe to have dumped on you. http://www.organicbugspray.com/malathion.htm
Well, with what little research I've been able to do in the few minutes since I read this, it seems that some people felt the chemical had a low danger level. Obviously, some disagree with that assessment.
At the very least, I think this example points out the importance of being involved with one's state and local government, so they don't act unilaterally without community involvement.
I'm curious...did you ever discuss this issue with Stiggy? He's been quite vocal in his disagreement with that point of view.
I don't believe we ever crossed paths on it. I think we started to get into some debate on Bush but it didn't go far. I didn't consider Stiggy to be that big a defender of him. He seems to be a conservative first, and not a defender of all people who wear a Republican lapel pin.
You would be incorrect. Stiggy is one of the biggest Bush defenders I've ever come across. Bar none.
He's even gone so far as to claim that 15 year old weapons components with inert sarin gas found in Iraq were the actual WMDs Colin Powell claimed we had conclusive proof of, and used it as proof that the Iraq invasion was not only justified but wildly successful. Not even the White House has tried to pull that one. Just Stiggy and Rick Santorum.
Out of curiosity, what led you to this conclusion? I'm just curious here, I promise not to debate this issue. I've heard very little on the subject, personally.
A Secretary of State must be professional at all times. It is the ultimate diplomatic position. Yet Hillary jumped down the throat of a journalist who made a simple mistake (due to the language barrier) because Hillary was being defensive of her legacy. She also went to Europe and declared that the U.S. is the first and oldest democracy in the world. She has made other smaller idiotic statements that made me cringe which I don't recall right now. And Obama is being rather bufoonish as well, trying to schmooze the Iranians, dissing the British as "just another of the 180 countries out there" ...
I won't debate the first parts, as I said (although I seem to recall Kissinger was less than diplomatic on occasion), but I do feel the need to respond to this:
and bowing to the emperor of Japan.
What, in god's name, is wrong with showing respect to another country's head of state? Would we not be insulted if he, or some other foreign dignitary, were disrespectful toward our leader?
I realize most of the criticism of that bit is knee-jerk conservative dislike of anything Obama does, no matter what, but I didn't think you were among that crowd.
Really? With whom?
Hype. I forget what they are arguing about.
Hype's over at AARMBreak these days? Huh, I didn't know that.
-- A2SG, at least that's where Stiggy's keeping himself these days, he hasn't shown his hide over here roughly since the last time I cleaned his clock on whatever it was we were discussing.....
Last edited on Thu Nov 26th, 2009 03:54 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Nov 30th, 2009 03:07 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Not in this case, no. Because the chemical has proven benefits, with minimal adverse effects.
As far as I'm concerned their studies are irrelevant because the larger issue here is that government is deciding you will be fluoridated - whether you like it or not. The government should not be deciding what is "good" for you and then forcing it down your throat. Maybe the government will one day decide that we are over populating and it starts introducing chemicals to induce miscarriages?
And if this isn't enough by itself, the very idea that government is trying to prevent your tooth decay is simply outrageous. Maybe it should add some more chemicals as well, agent "Z" to give your hair a glossier shine or agent "L^0X" to make your fingernails stronger?
Well, if those who propose the idea of intelligent design are right, then you'd have a point. However, all you've done is provide evidence against intelligent design.
Huh?
Well, with what little research I've been able to do in the few minutes since I read this, it seems that some people felt the chemical had a low danger level. Obviously, some disagree with that assessment.
Especially the ones who were puking their way to Urgent Care. Oh, by the way, state officials also recommended that people put their cars in garages or cover them at night because Malathion might damage paint on cars. Do you think this suggests anything?
At the very least, I think this example points out the importance of being involved with one's state and local government, so they don't act unilaterally without community involvement.
We couldn't get enough people organized. The California government and the citrus industry are powerful entities with deep pockets.
What, in god's name, is wrong with showing respect to another country's head of state? Would we not be insulted if he, or some other foreign dignitary, were disrespectful toward our leader?
Nobody bows to a U.S. president or any elected official - and no one is expected to.
I realize most of the criticism of that bit is knee-jerk conservative dislike of anything Obama does, no matter what, but I didn't think you were among that crowd.
By itself it isn't terribly noteworthy, and if this bow was the only blunder he made I wouldn't have mentioned it. Still, it is unsettling to see the president of the most militarily and economically powerful democracy in the world bowing to any "emperor" - who is a holdover symbol of Japan's aggressive non-democratic past.
I really don't care to see a U.S. president bowing to anyone, Queen Elizabeth included. If that's what she demands then I'd say they shouldn't meet, because no U.S. president should appear to be groveling to any ally or enemy. The gesture of bowing is that of submission and not just a show respect. If they can't meet as equals then they shouldn't meet.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1906 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 04:00 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Not in this case, no. Because the chemical has proven benefits, with minimal adverse effects.
As far as I'm concerned their studies are irrelevant because the larger issue here is that government is deciding you will be fluoridated - whether you like it or not. The government should not be deciding what is "good" for you and then forcing it down your throat.
Sounds to me like you're arguing against the very idea of representative government, where we elect people to act for us, instead of a pure democracy where every single decision would be put to a public vote.
As to any specific action the government has taken that you, or anyone, may disagree with, there are ways to protest and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Maybe the government will one day decide that we are over populating and it starts introducing chemicals to induce miscarriages?
Maybe they'll start making soylent green too.
Let's not start going down slippery slopes, shall we?
Well, if those who propose the idea of intelligent design are right, then you'd have a point. However, all you've done is provide evidence against intelligent design.
Huh?
You in effect said that if god intended us to take flouride, he'd have put it in the water himself.
Well, with what little research I've been able to do in the few minutes since I read this, it seems that some people felt the chemical had a low danger level. Obviously, some disagree with that assessment.
Especially the ones who were puking their way to Urgent Care.
Please note my lack of disagreement to your position here. I don't know enough to debate this with you, I just noted that there was another side to this issue, nothing more.
At the very least, I think this example points out the importance of being involved with one's state and local government, so they don't act unilaterally without community involvement.
We couldn't get enough people organized. The California government and the citrus industry are powerful entities with deep pockets.
Voter apathy is a perennial problem, I know. Still, people have managed to get things done on occasion. Good luck!
What, in god's name, is wrong with showing respect to another country's head of state? Would we not be insulted if he, or some other foreign dignitary, were disrespectful toward our leader?
Nobody bows to a U.S. president or any elected official - and no one is expected to.
True, but that isn't our culture. What if, for example, President Obama went to shake the Japanese emporer's hand and he made a move to do so, but instead ran his hand through his hair instead?
My way of thinking, he showed respect to a foreign head of state. As he should have. Nothing wrong with that.
See, I don't agree with the bizarre notion that respect = weakness. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite is true.
I realize most of the criticism of that bit is knee-jerk conservative dislike of anything Obama does, no matter what, but I didn't think you were among that crowd.
By itself it isn't terribly noteworthy, and if this bow was the only blunder he made I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Well, it is the only "blunder" you mentioned, and I completely disagree that it was a blunder at all.
Still, it is unsettling to see the president of the most militarily and economically powerful democracy in the world bowing to any "emperor" - who is a holdover symbol of Japan's aggressive non-democratic past.
What, should he have driven a tank through the front door instead? Then what, strip down and compare genitalia, to see who's are the biggest?
Really, what happened to diplomacy?
I really don't care to see a U.S. president bowing to anyone, Queen Elizabeth included. If that's what she demands then I'd say they shouldn't meet, because no U.S. president should appear to be groveling to any ally or enemy. The gesture of bowing is that of submission and not just a show respect. If they can't meet as equals then they shouldn't meet.
In Japanese culture, it is a sign of respect. Granted, the intricacies of the etiquette can be rather complex, but I do know that, in japan, equals do bow to each other.
-- A2SG, oh, and by the way, this is not the first time a US President has bowed to other heads of state.....
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 02:24 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Sounds to me like you're arguing against the very idea of representative government, where we elect people to act for us, instead of a pure democracy where every single decision would be put to a public vote.
That is a very peculiar conclusion. You think my objections fall in line with non-representive government? The Libertarian stance is that government should only perform those functions that the private sector cannot. And I can flouridate my own teeth.
Let's not start going down slippery slopes, shall we?
Slippery slopes are applicable when dealing with laws. They become "precedents."
You in effect said that if god intended us to take flouride, he'd have put it in the water himself.
That's another peculiar conclusion. So you believe it is natural or evolutionary for human beings to suddenly require a chemical pollutant to become a sturdier species?
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 1st, 2009 02:52 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: True, but that isn't our culture. What if, for example, President Obama went to shake the Japanese emporer's hand and he made a move to do so, but instead ran his hand through his hair instead?
That would be an insult. But what does that have to do with bowing?
My way of thinking, he showed respect to a foreign head of state. As he should have. Nothing wrong with that.
See, I don't agree with the bizarre notion that respect = weakness. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite is true.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe bowing is a gesture of submission, the same as I believe groveling at someone's feet is submissive. You apparently don't see it that way. It has nothing to do with "respect."
Well, it is the only "blunder" you mentioned, and I completely disagree that it was a blunder at all.
No, it was the only blunder that you singled out to comment on. I also mentioned his handling of Iran and Britain. And I do consider bowing a blunder.
I do give Obama credit in a couple of international departments. He is enough of a realist to recognize that unecessarily pissing off the Russians is reckless. The proposed defense shield in Eastern Europe was provocative and unecessary, so Obama cancelled it. And he is trying to remove our troops from Iraq as quickly as possible, which I also agree with. I believe this issue was ultimately McCain's downfall; he was essentially "stay the course" regarding Iraq.
What, should he have driven a tank through the front door instead? Then what, strip down and compare genitalia, to see who's are the biggest?
Really, what happened to diplomacy?
If they can't meet and simply shake hands then they shouldn't even meet. It wouldn't be the end of the world and it wouldn't affect our relations with Japan. He'd just meet with the prime minister, who is his counterpart anyway.
In Japanese culture, it is a sign of respect. Granted, the intricacies of the etiquette can be rather complex, but I do know that, in japan, equals do bow to each other.
If it was meant to be equal then the emperor would have bowed to Obama as well. Besides, a U.S. president isn't Japanese and therefore isn't bound by their culture. They also take baths together over there. Should Obama have done that as well while he was there?
-- A2SG, oh, and by the way, this is not the first time a US President has bowed to other heads of state.....
I don't object to the bowing because it is singularly Obama doing it.
Last edited on Tue Dec 1st, 2009 02:55 pm by Ronson
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1906 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 03:27 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: Sounds to me like you're arguing against the very idea of representative government, where we elect people to act for us, instead of a pure democracy where every single decision would be put to a public vote.
That is a very peculiar conclusion. You think my objections fall in line with non-representive government? The Libertarian stance is that government should only perform those functions that the private sector cannot. And I can flouridate my own teeth.
Well, the government is pledged to "promote the general welfare" and flouridating water can be seen as an attempt to do that.
After all, what are any laws, really, but an attempt to decide what is "good" for the populace? Is that not true for laws prohibiting murder, theft, etc?
See, any attempt by a representative to act in your stead by creating laws can be seen as deciding what is "good" for you and then "forcing it down your throat." It's all a matter of how you look at it.
Let's not start going down slippery slopes, shall we?
Slippery slopes are applicable when dealing with laws. They become "precedents."
Not in this case, no. Sorry, but adding flouride to water will not work as a precedent if someone wanted to add abortifacients to the water supply.
Legally, a precedent is not a license to create any law that is similar, it is only an argument. Whether or not it is a good one depends on how a judge views the full argument being made.
You in effect said that if god intended us to take flouride, he'd have put it in the water himself.
That's another peculiar conclusion.
Well, that's how it sounded to me. If you find it peculiar, allow me to explain:
You said: "If flouride was so beneficial for mankind to be ingesting then it would be found naturally in the environment and it would not be necessary to add it to drinking water. "
To my mind, that statement implies that things found "naturally in the environment" were put there to be "beneficial for mankind," which is basically an argument for intelligent design. That intelligence, of course, being synonymous with a god figure.
So you believe it is natural or evolutionary for human beings to suddenly require a chemical pollutant to become a sturdier species?
No, I don't. In fact, I said nothing even remotely close to that.
All I said was that adding flouride to water has certain provable benefits, and very minimal adverse effects. I said nothing about evolution at all.
-- A2SG, not even Sigmund could find anything about evolution in what I said......
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1906 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 04:12 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: True, but that isn't our culture. What if, for example, President Obama went to shake the Japanese emporer's hand and he made a move to do so, but instead ran his hand through his hair instead?
That would be an insult. But what does that have to do with bowing?
In Japanese culture, bowing is a sign of respect. Not respecting a head of state would be an insult, right?
My way of thinking, he showed respect to a foreign head of state. As he should have. Nothing wrong with that.
See, I don't agree with the bizarre notion that respect = weakness. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite is true.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm fine with that.
I believe bowing is a gesture of submission, the same as I believe groveling at someone's feet is submissive. You apparently don't see it that way. It has nothing to do with "respect."
Well then, I doubt President Obama would be bowing to you.
However, you are aware that we're not talking about you here, right? We're talking about a different culture, one where bowing IS a sign of respect. President Obama was respecting the culture he was in, he was not catering to your beliefs.
Well, it is the only "blunder" you mentioned, and I completely disagree that it was a blunder at all.
No, it was the only blunder that you singled out to comment on. I also mentioned his handling of Iran and Britain.
That's right, you did. I have to admit, I don't know the circumstances on that one.
And I do consider bowing a blunder.
And I think you're ignoring cultural differences in that assessment. You're judging his actions according to your own standards, not the standards of the culture in he was in.
But, as you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I do give Obama credit in a couple of international departments. He is enough of a realist to recognize that unecessarily pissing off the Russians is reckless. The proposed defense shield in Eastern Europe was provocative and unecessary, so Obama cancelled it. And he is trying to remove our troops from Iraq as quickly as possible, which I also agree with. I believe this issue was ultimately McCain's downfall; he was essentially "stay the course" regarding Iraq.
I agree as well. Although I firmly disagree with his pledge earlier tonight to send more troops into Afghanistan. Granted, a timeline for their exit is better than Bush's no end in sight idea.
What, should he have driven a tank through the front door instead? Then what, strip down and compare genitalia, to see who's are the biggest?
Really, what happened to diplomacy?
If they can't meet and simply shake hands then they shouldn't even meet.
So basically, Obama should only show respect according to his own culture, not the culture of the country he's a guest in? Otherwise, no relations can exist between the two countries?
It wouldn't be the end of the world and it wouldn't affect our relations with Japan. He'd just meet with the prime minister, who is his counterpart anyway.
I'm not saying it would. I just don't agree with your idea that showing respect is a sign of weakness.
I'd say that I respect your right to have a different opinion, but I don't know how you'd view me for saying so. Instead, I guess I'll have to give you a sign of strength instead. Up yours, fascist!
How's that? 
In Japanese culture, it is a sign of respect. Granted, the intricacies of the etiquette can be rather complex, but I do know that, in japan, equals do bow to each other.
If it was meant to be equal then the emperor would have bowed to Obama as well.
In the video I saw, he did bow. Not as deeply, I grant you, but that may have something to do with age. I admit I'm not fully versed on the intricacies of Japanese culture. Maybe it was the emperor's age, maybe it was because he was the host, Obama the guest. I don't know.
But I do know that in Japan, the bow is a sign of respect, not of subservience.
Besides, a U.S. president isn't Japanese and therefore isn't bound by their culture.
True. He was showing respect for that culture by honoring it. That's diplomacy in action.
They also take baths together over there. Should Obama have done that as well while he was there?
What if he had? So what? That is not a sign subservience in Japan either.
-- A2SG, oh, and by the way, this is not the first time a US President has bowed to other heads of state.....
I don't object to the bowing because it is singularly Obama doing it.
So was Ike showing subservience to France?
What about these images:
  
Let alone this one:
Now, I'm sure you objected to these back when they happened, but why, do you imagine, was there no hue and cry from the same conservative elements who are now calling Obama "treasonous" for bowing to the Japanese emperor?
-- A2SG, just out of curiosity.....
Last edited on Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 04:20 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Ronson
Ronson
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1544 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 2nd, 2009 05:04 pm |
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: In Japanese culture, bowing is a sign of respect. Not respecting a head of state would be an insult, right?
I'm fine with that.
Well then, I doubt President Obama would be bowing to you.
However, you are aware that we're not talking about you here, right? We're talking about a different culture, one where bowing IS a sign of respect. President Obama was respecting the culture he was in, he was not catering to your beliefs.
That's right, you did. I have to admit, I don't know the circumstances on that one.
And I think you're ignoring cultural differences in that assessment. You're judging his actions according to your own standards, not the standards of the culture in he was in.
But, as you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I agree as well. Although I firmly disagree with his pledge earlier tonight to send more troops into Afghanistan. Granted, a timeline for their exit is better than Bush's no end in sight idea.
So basically, Obama should only show respect according to his own culture, not the culture of the country he's a guest in? Otherwise, no relations can exist between the two countries?
I'm not saying it would. I just don't agree with your idea that showing respect is a sign of weakness.
I'd say that I respect your right to have a different opinion, but I don't know how you'd view me for saying so. Instead, I guess I'll have to give you a sign of strength instead. Up yours, fascist!
How's that?
In the video I saw, he did bow. Not as deeply, I grant you, but that may have something to do with age. I admit I'm not fully versed on the intricacies of Japanese culture. Maybe it was the emperor's age, maybe it was because he was the host, Obama the guest. I don't know.
But I do know that in Japan, the bow is a sign of respect, not of subservience.
True. He was showing respect for that culture by honoring it. That's diplomacy in action.
What if he had? So what? That is not a sign subservience in Japan either.
So was Ike showing subservience to France?
What about these images:
Let alone this one:
Hmmm ... perhaps it is my browser but I cannot see any images in your post.
At any rate, I am going to fall back on my "agree to disagree" comment.
Now, I'm sure you objected to these back when they happened, but why, do you imagine, was there no hue and cry from the same conservative elements who are now calling Obama "treasonous" for bowing to the Japanese emperor?
-- A2SG, just out of curiosity.....
Since I cannot see the images I do not know who is depicted. But generally, I object to "bowing" regardless of who is doing it to whom. As to why conservatives weren't complaining, it's the age-old political tendency to focus on and criticize the opposition. Liberals do it too.
|
Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1906 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 04:02 am |
|
Ronson wrote: Arthur Two Sheds Gumby wrote: What about these images:
Hmmm ... perhaps it is my browser but I cannot see any images in your post.
At any rate, I am going to fall back on my "agree to disagree" comment.
If you're curious, here are the direct links:
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h77/a2sg/bushbow1.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h77/a2sg/bushbow2.jpg
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h77/a2sg/bushbow3.jpg
The above show George W. Bush bowing to a couple of arab dignitaries and the Pope.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h77/a2sg/bushkiss1.jpg
And that one shows Bush kissing an arab leader.
Now, I'm sure you objected to these back when they happened, but why, do you imagine, was there no hue and cry from the same conservative elements who are now calling Obama "treasonous" for bowing to the Japanese emperor?
-- A2SG, just out of curiosity.....
Since I cannot see the images I do not know who is depicted. But generally, I object to "bowing" regardless of who is doing it to whom. As to why conservatives weren't complaining, it's the age-old political tendency to focus on and criticize the opposition. Liberals do it too.
Maybe so, but there was NO hue and cry when Bush bowed to any foreign national, not from those who now feel bowing shows weakness or from those who oppose Bush politically, so make of that what you will.
-- A2SG, still maintain the chief objection here is not what was done, but who did it....and that objection goes to anything Obama does, no matter what.....
Last edited on Thu Dec 3rd, 2009 04:03 am by Arthur Two Sheds Gumby
|
Current time is 03:16 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 |
|
|
|
|
