wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:56:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:21:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:24:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

snipped for brevity

Talk about Peter Principle - President Obama has created a whole new
category of incompetence - a Super Peter Principle.

Now there's one he should take a bow for...

Speaking of gratuitous genuflection, I've heard through the grapevine
that the President is unofficially rehearsing for what he expects to
receive from the Queen of England in an invitation to be knighted,
with the understanding that he will invariably earn the honor in the
future (a kind of 'ROI'al investment).


I guess you guys never heard of Eisenhower or Nixon bowing.

I'm familiar with the Brezhnev-Connors hug.

It's one thing to comport oneself with appropriate diginity and with
respect for others, it's another to act obsequiously. It's not
befitting a president of the United States and leader of the free
world, even if the President deems it to be a necessary symbolic
gesture. It's a symbol rooted in a naive ideology.


Both bowed... Eisenhower to de Gaulle???? Can you say right wing meltdown
if
that happened now...

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...image/42148032

Nixon bowed to Hirohito (in the US I believe) and to the Pope, not to
mention holding hands and kissing the Saudi monarch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=7031165

Quite some symbolism...

BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.


Perhaps you were talking about obsequiousness. In any case, I don't see
anything like that in any of the pictures. Do you think he (or any of them)
were cringing?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Hope you're all feeling supercalifragalisticexpealidocious.


Only if the biguns are spelled correctly.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:41:22 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Big or little, they have meaning.
Obsequious is big only in syllables.
I prefer beggarly bugger.

Hope you're all feeling supercalifragalisticexpealidocious.

Mary Poppins. Never could get through that.
I got broke in on antidisestablismentariaism.
Then I quit.

--Vic.





pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:26:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:56:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:21:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:24:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

snipped for brevity

Talk about Peter Principle - President Obama has created a whole new
category of incompetence - a Super Peter Principle.

Now there's one he should take a bow for...

Speaking of gratuitous genuflection, I've heard through the grapevine
that the President is unofficially rehearsing for what he expects to
receive from the Queen of England in an invitation to be knighted,
with the understanding that he will invariably earn the honor in the
future (a kind of 'ROI'al investment).


I guess you guys never heard of Eisenhower or Nixon bowing.

I'm familiar with the Brezhnev-Connors hug.

It's one thing to comport oneself with appropriate diginity and with
respect for others, it's another to act obsequiously. It's not
befitting a president of the United States and leader of the free
world, even if the President deems it to be a necessary symbolic
gesture. It's a symbol rooted in a naive ideology.


Both bowed... Eisenhower to de Gaulle???? Can you say right wing meltdown
if
that happened now...

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...image/42148032

Nixon bowed to Hirohito (in the US I believe) and to the Pope, not to
mention holding hands and kissing the Saudi monarch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=7031165

Quite some symbolism...

BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.


Perhaps you were talking about obsequiousness. In any case, I don't see
anything like that in any of the pictures. Do you think he (or any of them)
were cringing?

"Cringing"? I'm not quite sure where you got that from, Em.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:24:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:56:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:21:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:24:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

snipped for brevity

Talk about Peter Principle - President Obama has created a whole new
category of incompetence - a Super Peter Principle.

Now there's one he should take a bow for...

Speaking of gratuitous genuflection, I've heard through the grapevine
that the President is unofficially rehearsing for what he expects to
receive from the Queen of England in an invitation to be knighted,
with the understanding that he will invariably earn the honor in the
future (a kind of 'ROI'al investment).


I guess you guys never heard of Eisenhower or Nixon bowing.

I'm familiar with the Brezhnev-Connors hug.

It's one thing to comport oneself with appropriate diginity and with
respect for others, it's another to act obsequiously. It's not
befitting a president of the United States and leader of the free
world, even if the President deems it to be a necessary symbolic
gesture. It's a symbol rooted in a naive ideology.


Both bowed... Eisenhower to de Gaulle???? Can you say right wing meltdown
if
that happened now...

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...image/42148032

Nixon bowed to Hirohito (in the US I believe) and to the Pope, not to
mention holding hands and kissing the Saudi monarch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=7031165

Quite some symbolism...

Am I impressed with Eisenhower or Nixon?


That's really not the question is it. The discussion was precedence and
protocol.

The question, Em, is if a fawning gesture such as a deep bow is an
appropriate gesture for the POTUS. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest
that an informal bow given out of respect by two previous presidents
sets a precedent for obsequious behavior by our current head of state.
It's the type of gesture surrendered by a subordinate to a regal
power. It's surreal.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:55:52 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:41:22 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:



BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Big or little, they have meaning.
Obsequious is big only in syllables.
I prefer beggarly bugger.


You have a better temperment than most, Vic.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Nov 17, 6:24*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:56:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:21:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:24:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

snipped for brevity

Talk about Peter Principle - President Obama has created a whole new
category of incompetence - a Super Peter Principle.

Now there's one he should take a bow for...

Speaking of gratuitous genuflection, I've heard through the grapevine
that the President is unofficially rehearsing for what he expects to
receive from the Queen of England in an invitation to be knighted,
with the understanding that he will invariably earn the honor in the
future (a kind of 'ROI'al investment).

I guess you guys never heard of Eisenhower or Nixon bowing.

I'm familiar with the Brezhnev-Connors hug.

It's one thing to comport oneself with appropriate diginity and with
respect for others, it's another to act obsequiously. *It's not
befitting a president of the United States and leader of the free
world, even if the President deems it to be a necessary symbolic
gesture. *It's a symbol rooted in a naive ideology.

Both bowed... Eisenhower to de Gaulle???? Can you say right wing meltdown
if
that happened now...

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...ama-isnt-kneel....

Nixon bowed to Hirohito (in the US I believe) and to the Pope, not to
mention holding hands and kissing the Saudi monarch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...p?az=show_mesg....

Quite some symbolism...

Am I impressed with Eisenhower or Nixon?

That's really not the question is it.

Are you making a statement, or a question (?)

On Nov 17, 6:27*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"jps" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:15:31 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:01:07 -0600, wrote:

BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Guess he's not god like - when he's obsequious anyway.
Pretty much like he's a shrimp when he's not a big oaf.
And he's senile when he's not juvenile.
I think I get it.

--Vic

Big words are always better if they make the writer sound smart.
Unless they serve to garble the writer's meaning, cloud the *intended
message and confuse or mislead the reader.

Hope you're all feeling supercalifragalisticexpealidocious.

Only if the biguns are spelled correctly.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Honestly, do you really wish to use the word "Biguns," instead of
"Bigguns?"

There is a huge difference.

On Nov 17, 7:10*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:26:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"



wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:56:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:21:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:24:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

snipped for brevity

Talk about Peter Principle - President Obama has created a whole new
category of incompetence - a Super Peter Principle.

Now there's one he should take a bow for...

Speaking of gratuitous genuflection, I've heard through the grapevine
that the President is unofficially rehearsing for what he expects to
receive from the Queen of England in an invitation to be knighted,
with the understanding that he will invariably earn the honor in the
future (a kind of 'ROI'al investment).

I guess you guys never heard of Eisenhower or Nixon bowing.

I'm familiar with the Brezhnev-Connors hug.

It's one thing to comport oneself with appropriate diginity and with
respect for others, it's another to act obsequiously. *It's not
befitting a president of the United States and leader of the free
world, even if the President deems it to be a necessary symbolic
gesture. *It's a symbol rooted in a naive ideology.

Both bowed... Eisenhower to de Gaulle???? Can you say right wing meltdown
if
that happened now...

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...ama-isnt-kneel....

Nixon bowed to Hirohito (in the US I believe) and to the Pope, not to
mention holding hands and kissing the Saudi monarch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...p?az=show_mesg...

Quite some symbolism...

BTW, Em, I was speaking of obsequiosness, not an informal bow.

Perhaps you were talking about obsequiousness. In any case, I don't see
anything like that in any of the pictures. Do you think he (or any of them)
were cringing?

"Cringing"? *I'm not quite sure where you got that from, Em.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Relax, friend. Neither does she.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:24:26 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:56:18 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:21:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:ba74g5dl20j0hqnuddmtd1umkkpuruig3l@4ax. com...
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:24:55 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

snipped for brevity

Talk about Peter Principle - President Obama has created a whole new
category of incompetence - a Super Peter Principle.

Now there's one he should take a bow for...

Speaking of gratuitous genuflection, I've heard through the
grapevine
that the President is unofficially rehearsing for what he expects to
receive from the Queen of England in an invitation to be knighted,
with the understanding that he will invariably earn the honor in the
future (a kind of 'ROI'al investment).


I guess you guys never heard of Eisenhower or Nixon bowing.

I'm familiar with the Brezhnev-Connors hug.

It's one thing to comport oneself with appropriate diginity and with
respect for others, it's another to act obsequiously. It's not
befitting a president of the United States and leader of the free
world, even if the President deems it to be a necessary symbolic
gesture. It's a symbol rooted in a naive ideology.


Both bowed... Eisenhower to de Gaulle???? Can you say right wing
meltdown
if
that happened now...

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed...image/42148032

Nixon bowed to Hirohito (in the US I believe) and to the Pope, not to
mention holding hands and kissing the Saudi monarch.

http://www.democraticunderground.com...esg_id=7031165

Quite some symbolism...

Am I impressed with Eisenhower or Nixon?


That's really not the question is it. The discussion was precedence and
protocol.

The question, Em, is if a fawning gesture such as a deep bow is an
appropriate gesture for the POTUS. It's a bit of a stretch to suggest
that an informal bow given out of respect by two previous presidents
sets a precedent for obsequious behavior by our current head of state.
It's the type of gesture surrendered by a subordinate to a regal
power. It's surreal.


So, we're going to measure inches? I still don't see any grovelling, but
we all see what we want to see and disregard the rest.

--
Nom=de=Plume