I just don't see a difference in them and Christian fundamentalists. The only reason we don't see Christian fundamentalists burning people at the stake is because we have a stronger government and civilization that has evolved. If our government was as weak as these Islamic countries, we'd be seeing a lot of crazy shit going on.

I agree that Islam is dangerous, but I believe the same can be said about all religions. It was a Christian who chose to bomb the crap out of Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of people. A Christian who felt it was what God wanted. Sure it's more sophisticated than blowing yourself up on a bus, but is it really that much different?

shock and awe on TV vs. click {silence}

Don't get me wrong, a christian fundamentalist can be just as dangerous as a jihadist. Like I said before, islam has been stuck in the dark ages, but, I think christianity has adapted (to a certain degree) better to the changing world. Of course it's all relative, try telling that to Galileo or the 'witches' burned at the stake in Salem or the doctors who were killed by anti-abortion fundies.

I think after 9/11, America had to do something. However, it was so poorly executed, it was beyond embarassing and I think part of the problem was Bush's faith and half assed intel instead of basing America's response on facts and quality intel. War is ugly enough as it is without religion thrown into the mix and Bush did throw the religious hat into the ring, which maybe is where these muslims are thinking there is a war going on against islam. I'm speculating though on that.

Are we sure that article wasn't written by Jim Varney? ;)

SI

Yikes!

Bill Allows Obama Power to Shut Down Internet - Tom's Hardware

http://www.computerworld.com/action/...intsrc=kc_feat

My hope is he doesn't bow to other world leaders...

http://foxforum.files.wordpress.com/..._saudi_bow.jpg

At least he's not hand-holding and kissing the Saudi king.

Either of those are proper for one leader of a country to another. There is no putting ones self below the other. This is shameful.

The bowing is a minor issue, probably inappropriate, but it's not a huge deal.

The larger issue is the initial spin that the White House tried to put on it, saying that Obama didn't bow, he just "leaned down" to shake hands. The absurdity of that denial lies in the fact that Obama is only a few inches taller than the king; it's not like he was shaking hands with "Tatu" from Fantasy Island.

Really? Is this an Arab custom or is generally accepted?

The obvious lie about this has made it a much bigger issue with people than it would have been otherwise.

Also, one has to wonder if Biden lives in his own little fantasy world at times. Some of the whoppers this guy has tossed out.

No clue...our president bows to nobody....period...end of discussion.

Oh that there were a rolly-eyes big enough.

Why don't the two of them just whip it out and start measuring on the spot

SI

I haven't really followed the news on bow-gate, but I have to think Obama and his administration have to be pretty happy right now. I mean out of all that is going on in the world, the two biggest complaints right now are bowing and having a meeting at the White House playground.

I know the Republicans have backed themselves into a corner on some issues and can't legitimately attack him on it, but they still need to come up with something that people give a shit.

This is what the republicans have done for the past 10 years. No talk on issues, no talk on solutions, just throw out angry things about the gays and wacky liberals...you will see it monthly I'm sure, especially after that craptacular budget proposal they threw out in 3 days.

I wish somebody would do something somewhere, I'm not really certain either party can make real progress right about now.

It's so amusing to me how one's political affiliation makes ANYTHING their "team" does acceptable and no big deal, while saying that everything the "bad guys" do is wrong. It's so fucking dumb, and I'm amazed that so many otherwise intelligent people are brainwashed into falling in line like that. It's despicable.

Whatever, I'm pretty liberal and I'd rather not see Obama bow to the Saudi king. I will add that I know next to nothing about Arab culture or the proper protocol in such a situation though.

There are far bigger issues right now of course...

I seem to remember quite a hubbub when Bush was holding hands with the Saudi King and kissing him on the cheeks (which is very common in the culture, which is why I roll my eyes when people talking about an Arab leader hugging a Hamas or something leader - its like a handshake here). At least my liberal friends were. They were using it as some sort of evidence that oil men will always embrace the Saudis or something.

So when they express shock that people are going on about the bow, well.. it amuses me.

Maybe I was a little over-the-top, but I still think the vast majority of people in this country have black and white visions of the world, and that mentality is prevalent on this board. It goes for sides, regardless of intellect.

I simply dont care....about bush shaking hands and kissing a saudi king, or obama bowing. not one bit, Now Rumsfeld and Saddam was pretty crappy, but again...

I believe we SHOULD meet with our enemies so I {shrug} at it all.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Yeah, you make a good point. I suppose my post of "hey look at me I'm a liberal and I disagree with bowing" proves it in a way.

Another possible aspect is that sometimes on message boards people are loathe to say things that piss them off about "their side" because they've been sniping at the other side for so many years that it becomes more about winning e-arguments than discussing politics.

I agree that the holding hands/making out that Bush did was brought up by liberals/Democrats. That's what makes these diehard political affiliations so silly. They have to be hypocrits at all times.

The one difference now though is that Democrats never really made it their talking point of the week. It was mentioned and people said stuff in passing about it, but it was never the topic du jour across the land from what I remember.

I guess my point is that parties play right into the hands of their opponents when they go overboard on stupid shit. I'm not a fan of Obama bowing to the Saudi King, but ultimately I don't really give a shit about the issue. Most Americans don't either. Each party only has a certain amount of time to spread their messages and get in the ear of the average voter. Why fucking waste that time bitching about some stupid bow that no one is going to base their vote on in 2010 or 2012? I'd love to see a fiscally conservative opposition party in this country, but the Republican party is so fucking stupid today that it's going to leave one party with a lot of power for a long time.

In what setting/context did Rumsfeld shake Saddam's hand? When was that?

Early 80's when we supported Iraq.

It would be nice if humanity as a whole could escape the need to be in power or be revered or act a specific way to appease a specific set of people. We should all be working toward making everything better, not bickering over things that cannot be changed or criticizing every minute detail of a leaders actions abroad. I could understand if Obama or any president did something drastic that could be widely viewed as disgraceful or stupid, but a bow?

That will not put our country or any other country in any more danger than we are. With the popularity of Obama abroad, this seems like a good chance to really make some progress with countries like Russia, Iran, China, and the like.. I'm all for that.

I would be satisfied if any president we have in office could manage to mend the fences between us and our enemies and find common ground and peaceful resolutions that benefit both sides, regardless of how that is achieved. War and greed and the whole quest for dominance thing is something we as humans should be able to move past in the face of greater concerns in this day and age. I wish we could stop acting like animals.

isnt the first time a friend has become and enemy, which is why I was initially against the Dubai ports deal, and it certainly wont be the last.

Im ALL FOR meeting with the enemy...friends today we can meet with without me needing to have an opinion on it.

Diplomacy in action.

Two things...

1) Why read the "Obama Presidency- hopes and predictions" thread and expect anything but what you described? (Would you read the 2009 Yankees thread and expect anything but a bunch of homers talking about how great they will be followed by a bunch of Red Sox fans making fun?)

2) When people craft their own opinions it is one thing when Fox News/Limbaugh craft them for people it is sad. Last week was the bow. Watch this week will be all about Somalia and how Clinton caused these piracy problems by leaving Somalia after the BlackHawk incident.

It was the same way when Bush was in power. It was very easy to see what was going to be the next Democrat rallying cry. The Democrats controlled Congress for 2 years and did nothing. The Republicans for 4 before that with their own president. Why does anyone expect any progress out of either side in a two party system?

Or just as between one another in general, not even countries but ordinary people.

SI

Because our two-party system has produced more progress than any other system of government ever has?

That's the only variable that makes us different from other countries? Sure.

I'm working within the framework of the argument you presented.

Agreed. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I have faith that younger generations will be raised differently with the technological advances that have been made. People are now much more able to be aware of the entire world around them and hopefully there will be a day when cultures simply exchange ideas and enjoy the differences that make them unique.. Maybe see them as something to embrace, share and learn from, rather than something to protect, defend and force onto others.

The belief that "what we do is right, what they do is wrong" in any culture seems so outdated now.

Do you honestly believe that's going to happen? That's the kind of stuff that just cracks me up. How long have the Muslims been fighting those of European descent? Do you think that's going to actually stop because we sit down with them at some point? Are we to meet with them, accept their demands, and then watch as they push that line a little further?

Note that I don't have a problem with the actual religion, nor other religions but there will forever be groups with extreme ideas that will need to be dealt with with opposition and with force if needed.

I agree that I'd love to see it. At some point, we will, as a species grow up or die out. Tragically, for some people, I think that's the only realization that will keep them from trying to ruin things for "the rest of us".

I disagree that one of the next generation or two will do it, for a couple of reasons. All the current technology does is allow us to escape reality and disconnect people from the fact that they are living, breathing human beings. Everyone is suddenly an avatar or a screen name and while you can get their thoughts on a plethora of topics, rarely are they more than skin deep.

Unfortunately, I really think it will take a great tragedy or catastrophe to bring people together- something on the level of a mass catastrophe- world war, global plague, etc- to remind people again that we all need each other. For those who on a daily basis are generally good people- they will continue to live their lives and if the world were made up of just those people, it would be a better and simpler place. Many who are afraid or unsure will be once again reminded that doing what is right is what they should do. And, the key, is it has to be a big enough event that those who do things solely or at least a majority for selfish reasons realize that they have to at least moderate their appetites so that it doesn't bring about the whole world as that is against their self interest. Those people can probably never change- they just have to die out, likely to be replaced by more. But at least the damage they do to society as a whole needs to be contained by aligning their selfish interest with those that are less destructive to society as a whole.

Eventually, in this country, we will get past the Darwinian explanations and misinterpretations of Adam Smith's invisible hand. No, acting solely in your own self interest is not the American way nor is it good or can you justify it in any way. Having the freedom to do what you want doesn't mean you can do what you want regardless of consequences. Nor does it mean you "live with the consequences" when we rarely face the true consequences for our actions.* Evil may be in our natures but it can be controlled, just not if we keep telling everyone that evil *is* our nature.

*Driving when drunk and making it home without being caught or hitting someone else doesn't mean you faced the consequences- it means you got lucky. Stealing millions from people because it's "legal" through a loophole you spent money on a lobbyist to open up when you know it's morally wrong but don't care doesn't mean you are facing consequences. Hell, we are all culpable in a lot of our fellow man's suffering just by not even acknowledging there is a problem or that it's someone else's problem or that it's their own fault when many times it is not.

But that day is a long way off, I fear. And I'm not sure we'll ever make it before killing ourselves off.

SI

No comments yet on the release of the torture memos?

Whether you are for the United States torturing people or against it, it seems like the issue would inspire some discussion on a board where a few percentage point change in marginal tax rates gets 10,000 posts full of sound and fury before the thread even gets started.

It's still disgusting.

It's still immoral.

It's still illegal.

edit: There's really very little point in arguing it here. Most already knew i was illegal and the rest either wish we hadn't been so pansyassed or refuse to acknowledge torture no matter how much proof is provided. Hopefully those responsible can come to some understanding with God.

We had some pretty sadistic dudes running the show is all I can say.

+1

+2

Because, basically, we already had the argument, at length, spread over several threads and several years.

Besides, I already won these arguments. :D

Given the dueling evaluation of the memos.

"See, These clearly delineate that there was no torture."

and

"These make it abundantly clear that ...Bush... engaged in torture."

I can see it now.

President Obama extends an olive branch and pardons President Bush.

That's arguable. :)

Not a chance. He won't initiate an investigation through DOJ, but no way he issues a pardon. All of the work he's been doing internationally would be pissed away in that one moment. edit: And what possible benefit would Obama see? There's no one that won't vote for Obama now that would if he pardon's Bush.

I won't even begin to argue whether a rational person could say these memos proof there was no torture.

His 100 days is coming up. Should be interesting to read the summary/analysis and opinion polls.

Obama's First 100 Days - Wall Street Journal

Did Obama nominate Al Gore for Energy Secretary and I just missed it somehow?

Energy Secretary Offers Dire Global Warming Prediction - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

Hmm, who to give the benefit of the doubt to... PhD holding nobel laureate or MBBF and his track record... hmm....

Good lord. Keep your green blinders on.

It's fine to explore both sides of the issue, but there's plenty of information to show that Gore-esque conclusions regarding global warming are questionable at best.

As I stated before, I'm not opposed in any form to responsible clean-up of the environment at all levels. I just believe that using questionable scare tactics should not be the primary motivation for doing so.

Ill take an XBOX360 for the win, bob.

No green blinders here, just wondering who to back in this debate, the guy who's been wrong about just about everything, or anyone else.

Agreed. Backing Gore's viewpoint at this point is questionable at best.