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...

Am I impressed with Eisenhower or Nixon?


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

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

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

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 (?)

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
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 (?)


No ?, thus a statement.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Nov 17, 8:50*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:


That's really not the question is it.
Are you making a statement, or a question (?)

No ?, thus a statement.

--
Nom=de=Plume

The, why make it a question?

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 8:50 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:


That's really not the question is it.
Are you making a statement, or a question (?)

No ?, thus a statement.

--
Nom=de=Plume

The, why make it a question?


???

--
Nom=de=Plume