Sexual predators now allowed to haunt women's bathrooms in NH, MA [Archive]

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 02:47

It never ends (http://current.com/items/89953256/push_for_transgender_protection_reaches_n_h_what_bathroom_to_use.htm). :wall:
Because some folks who want to pretend to be women or pretend to be men get their feelings hurt when somebody points out, no, sorry... if you have a penis, you go in the men's room, Jillian and Allison will meet strange men in public women's washrooms.

Is it just me, or are we really jumping the shark as a society these days. Obama bows to the Saudi King in a room full of foreign dignitaries, we allow pirates to seize our crews because it's uncivilized to defend yourself... and now this...

Am I am the only one who forsees child molestors all of a sudden developing "transgender issues" so they can lurk in womens' rooms?

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 02:49

1. Calm down
2. Link?

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 02:55

1. Calm down
2. Link?

:laugh4:

Aye mate, watch that blood pressure. :skull:

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 02:57

bows to the Saudi King in a room full of foreign dignitaries, we allow pirates to seize our crews because it's uncivilized to defend yourself... and now this...

Jeez, talk about going off on a completely unrelated tangent. It's always been my understanding that bowing to a King or Queen was simple courtesy and custom.

As to the pirates, well, I've addressed that point in the right thread.

Meneldil

04-09-2009, 03:09

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-09-2009, 03:12

3 - Are you assimilating transexuals to sexual predators?

Did he say that? Please reread the OP before presuming.

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 03:15

Don, there is always risk in public restrooms. ESP for small kids. I remember having to run into the bathroom once to protect my brother from some creepy old guy. There is always inherent risk my friend. Just be wary.

I would bow to the Saudi king to. Respect

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 03:15

Wow Don, I find you to usually be a quite enjoyable poster, even when I strongly disagree with you, but like, wow... These two topics you just opened are kind of disturbing.

1 - Obama has to respect the tradition, whether it is with the Queen of Britain (England?) or with the King of Saudi Arabia. Remember the outrage in UK when Obama's wife touched the Queen? I'm pretty sure the POTUS doesn't want to cause something like that in the arab world.

2 - The pirate thingy. Well, do you like plan to blow up Somalia? These people are pirating because they don't have anything else to do. I'm not saying you should not defend your sailors, as you obviously should, but behaving like the pirates are flesh-eating barbarians isn't going to lead you anywhere.

3 - Are you assimilating transexuals to sexual predators?

Item 1: In the 208 year history of our Constitutional republic, no president has ever bowed to anyone. This was actually an issue in the 90s when then President Clinton made a gesture remotely resembling a bow to the Emperor of Japan.

Item 2: Did I say blow up Somalia? I said do SOMETHING. ANYTHING. I never said anything about blowing up Somalia, I just said our "Vote Present" president is going to have to start earning the title one of these days.

Item 3: No, nor did I remotely say anything of the sort. But can YOU tell the difference between a legitimately transgendered man who feels they belong in the ladies room and a sexual predator that wants to hang out in there?

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:19

Item 1: In the 208 year history of our Constitutional republic, no president has ever bowed to anyone. This was actually an issue in the 90s when then President Clinton made a gesture remotely resembling a bow to the Emperor of Japan.

OH NO HE BOWED OUT OF COURTESY BEHEAD THAT TRAITOR MUSLIM COWARD OSAMA BIN OBAMA. He's not submitting America to Saudi rule, he's being courteous. Did you expect him to "terrorist fist bump" the King?

If I ever met a King or Queen in my life, I would bow out of courtesy.

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 03:21

OH NO HE BOWED OUT OF COURTESY BEHEAD THAT TRAITOR MUSLIM COWARD OSAMA BIN OBAMA. He's not submitting America to Saudi rule, he's being courteous. Did you expect him to "terrorist fist bump" the King?

If I ever met a King or Queen in my life, I would bow out of courtesy.

As you should, as you are an individual, and as would I. But neither of us are the sovereign of the United States. Yes, by bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, President Obama was being publicly submissive. That's where bows come from.

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 03:24

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:26

As you should, as you are an individual, and as would I. But neither of us are the sovereign of the United States. Yes, by bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, President Obama was being publicly submissive. That's where bows come from.

So now Obama is selling the United States to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis will be here to teach us Arabic and hand out free Qurans. That's what I'm getting from such an over reaction by a lot of people to a non-issue.

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 03:35

So now Obama is selling the United States to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis will be here to teach us Arabic and hand out free Qurans. That's what I'm getting from such an over reaction by a lot of people to a non-issue.

Where did I say any of that? I said he took a publicly submissive pose to a sovereign of another country and chided him for that. You and Meneldil seem to have a burning desire to put words in my mouth and construct strawmen. If you have no respect for your country, that's your right. If you think our sovereign should bow to every last drug lord in Juarez, that's your right too. But attributing statements to me that I did not make... that's dishonest.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:35

Obama bows to SHAKE THE KINGS HAND? Kill him. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JGK-xbXxMw&feature=related)

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 03:36

Obama bows to SHAKE THE KINGS HAND? Kill him. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JGK-xbXxMw&feature=related)

Take a look at the photograph. He's not bowing to shake anybody's hand. He's hunching over, in a show of submission.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:39

If you have no respect for your country, that's your right.

Accuse me of putting words into your mouth is fine by me. Questioning my loyalty is a completely different story.

If you think our sovereign should bow to every last drug lord in Juarez, that's your right too.

I think it's an insult to compare a King to a drug lord. Also highlight where I made any post like that. At least my claim is based on the fact this is a non issue being overblown.

[quot]But attributing statements to me that I did not make... that's dishonest.[/QUOTE]

May have to re-read your post.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:40

Take a look at the photograph. He's not bowing to shake anybody's hand. He's hunching over, in a show of submission.

I'm attributing this to bad eyesight. Pause around 0:04. You can clearly see him putting his hand out for the shake, which is accepted.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 03:44

Oh, and Don, are you a mind reader? You seem to know, almost perfectly, that Obama's intention was to surrender the United States to Osama bin Ladin, or whatever that drug lord's name is.

Samurai Waki

04-09-2009, 03:49

Don Corleone

04-09-2009, 03:53

You know Don, as a fellow parent of two young girls I'd hope that you were aware that it is indeed okay for you to escort them into a men's restroom to do their business behind closed doors so that you could safely be secure in the knowledge that a child predator isn't lurking about.

I'm actually a bit more nervous about the ragged drifter looking types who don't have any children of their own present, but like to watch them play about at the park.

Me too. I was very happy with the hidden camera 20/20 that showed parents' reactions to some lone adult man trying to talk a young girl into leaving with him to look for a puppy (both were actors). One guy (which would have been me) had to be physically restrained until they could explain the situation to him (that it was staged).

Xiahou

04-09-2009, 03:54

Gaffe?Yeah, basically. Our head of state bowing to a foreign leader is pretty bad form. :yes:

:focus:

I think it's a little bit of a jump being made in the topic, but regardless, I completely disagree with letting transvestites into restrooms of the opposite sex. If you're still a man you use the men's room. No exceptions.

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 03:56

Me too. I was very happy with the hidden camera 20/20 that showed parents' reactions to some lone adult man trying to talk a young girl into leaving with him to look for a puppy (both were actors). One guy (which would have been me) had to be physically restrained until they could explain the situation to him (that it was staged).

video

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 03:57

I actually knew a guy who wanted to be a woman. His name was Graham Sandra and he had three kids. He seemed level headed enough when I broached the subjected of his sexual orientation. I don't think he was a 'kiddy fiddler' though. In fact I'm sure he wasn't.

Just because a person has a problem with their sexuality doesn't mean that they're perverts. Not with kids anyroad. The assertion that they do reminds me of my dads second wife, long dead, who was convinced that homosexuals preyed on children.

No matter what I said to her she wasn't having any of it. It's my opinion that your mixing your apples up with pears here old friend.

Sasaki Kojiro

04-09-2009, 04:00

No matter what I said to her she wasn't having any of it. It's my opinion that your mixing your apples up with pears here old friend.

He didn't say anything like that.

Obama seems a bit...inexperienced.

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 04:03

He didn't say anything like that.

Obama seems a bit...inexperienced.

Maybe but the inference was there. You see if you do decide to become a woman they set that racoon on your moist bits, so you aint got none no more. No moist bits, no problem. :smash:

My mate has two daughters, one night we were having a few beers and chewing the fat and the subject got onto our kids. He said to me, "You've got two lads, right? , all you have to do is worry about is two dicks, I have to worry about millions!".

My eldest lad went one better and said with a straight face that he was going to ban his daughter from having boyfriends until she was 25. :laugh4: Fat chance!

Must be a dad and daughter thingy. :embarassed:

Sarmatian

04-09-2009, 04:19

Although I don't usually consider such things important, but I think Obama shouldn't have bowed, even if it's just custom. They're both heads of state and are considered equal... Not a big deal, but he shouldn't have done that.

Samurai Waki

04-09-2009, 04:21

This may be the strangest duel conversation in Backroom History. Obama bowing to other heads of state and Transgendered Child Predators. :laugh4:

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 04:27

Just as long as he doesn't bow down in front of a Transgendered Child Predator. All should be hunky dory. :sweatdrop:

Lemur

04-09-2009, 04:27

Can we work gun control and abortion into this thread? That would be KEWL!

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 04:28

Can we work gun control and abortion into this thread? That would be KEWL!

I think fetus's have the right to own guns to defend themselves against abortion clinics.

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 04:29

I think fetus's have the right to own guns to defend themselves against abortion clinics.

That is the best picture in my head. A doctors hand goes in and a stump comes out.

Marshal Murat

04-09-2009, 04:33

I would like to point out that Don's intent was to highlight the possibility of a sexual predator taking advantage of the transgender law to enter a women's bathroom and not be kicked out. He could claim he was "Sandra", and no one could really prove otherwise. Who's going to monitor those entering a bathroom for "gender confusion"? Maybe we should give transgendered people stars that they can put on their clothes

I do not care for Obama bowing to anyone. He's the President of the United States, not a mollycuddler! He shouldn't bow to anyone. Get some respect for the office, I mean, you had Aretha Franklin sing at your inauguration! We Americans have the most profound disrespect for anyone with a royal title, and to give in now signals the end of the American Dream.

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 04:35

Did Aretha bow? :inquisitive:

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 04:36

I do not care for Obama bowing to anyone. He's the President of the United States, not a mollycuddler! He shouldn't bow to anyone. Get some respect for the office, I mean, you had Aretha Franklin sing at your inauguration! We Americans have the most profound disrespect for anyone with a royal title, and to give in now signals the end of the American Dream.

Point to you. LOL.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 04:36

I think the reason Obama bowed was that he was pregnant, and he was also giving a signal to the Ay-rabs that they can kidnap whomever they like and he won't do anything about it. Also, by bowing to the Saudi King, he was indicating that he intends to take all of the guns away and sign the U.S.A. over the the Caliphate.

But it might have had something to do with global warming ....

Seamus Fermanagh

04-09-2009, 04:48

I don't believe Obama was bowing to his suzerain or anything of the sort (though I have little doubt that some will spin it that way). I do think he's a little lacking in respect for some of our "chip on the shoulder" traditions -- President never bows, flag doesn't get dipped, etc. -- because his sense of America as a nation is quite different from mine. Sure, they are little things and largely symbolic, but to me it is part of national pride. I have a sense that Obama's pride in the USA is less of the old-fashioned kind than is mine.

Raising a wee lass is WAY different than raising a little laddie. Both need your protection for many years, but girls think/act/relate to the world differently. In many ways, they have the advantage, but ...

Crazed Rabbit

04-09-2009, 08:21

I would bow to the Saudi king to. Respect

No American official should show any such deference to royalty, anywhere.

CR

Tribesman

04-09-2009, 11:42

No American official should show any such deference to royalty, anywhere.
Yet the father of your nation said such actions cannot be negleted when they are due .
If you want officials that don't follow simple protocol then make sure you only elect Quakers:2thumbsup:

Yeah, basically. Our head of state bowing to a foreign leader is pretty bad form.
Yeah basically 10 of your heads of state have bowed to one current head of state let alone the hundreds of times they did it with other heads of states ,so its not bad form its just normal .....unless of course Obama does the samething because thats comletely different as its errrrr....Obama doing it .

Funny topic though Don . So tell me , before this really absolutely terrible earthshattering ruling that allows sexual predators to pretend by putting on a dress so they can walk into a womans restroom what was to stop a sexual predator putting on a dress and walking into a womans restroom ?

Louis VI the Fat

04-09-2009, 11:45

https://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3271/061807popebush.gif (https://img21.imageshack.us/my.php?image=061807popebush.gif)

Not a snapshot of Bush dozing off standing. He is actually bowing. Condi* Rice kissed the pope's ring as well.

*Condi, because I don't remember how to spell condolleaza(?)

Edit: sorry, my mistake. C. Rice is looking on approvingly. It is Nancy Pelosi who is doing the actual kissing of the pope's ring.

https://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3825/d01a4b636fb144b5a795d21.jpg (https://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=d01a4b636fb144b5a795d21.jpg)

Tribesman

04-09-2009, 11:55

Unnecessary and potentially offensive joke removed. SF

Andres

04-09-2009, 12:48

Because some folks who want to pretend to be women or pretend to be men get their feelings hurt when somebody points out, no, sorry... if you have a penis, you go in the men's room, Jillian and Allison will meet strange men in public women's washrooms.

Nowadays, any sick weirdo can dress himself as a woman and enter womens' rooms with the purpose of harassing them.

A law allowing men with transgender issues to enter womens' rooms won't change that.

Note: I'm not really in favor of such regulations, I'm just saying that you should be concerned about sick weirdo's, not about a possible bill to add "gender identity and expression" to discrimination laws (allthough there is something to say about the non discrimination of such people, but, as open minded as I am, allowing men dressed as a woman into womens' showers goes a step too far imo).

Is it just me, or are we really jumping the shark as a society these days. Obama bows to the Saudi King in a room full of foreign dignitaries, we allow pirates to seize our crews because it's uncivilized to defend yourself... and now this...

Not sure how that relates to the article you referred to in your OP, but ok.

I agree that something must be done against those pirates.

Maybe it's because I'm not an American, but I really fail to understand what is so outrageous about Obama nodding (slightly bowing?) to a foreign head of state out of respect for protocol/old traditions/customs. It's not like he surrendered the United States and all its' inhabitants to Saoudi-Arabia :shrug:

Vuk

04-09-2009, 14:45

Seeing that there are two seperate topics being discussed in the same thread, I will tackle them each one at a time.
1. Bowing to the Saudi King.

When a president bows to a pope, that is a personal acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God over your individual soul, and the power of the pope as the way to reach it. (I am not Catholic, and this is not my belief) This is not medieval europe, and the pope does not hold the political power over rulers as you used to. Bowing to the pope is a thing of soul, and personal. Bowing to a king is something completely different and very political. We fought a war so that America would never have to bow to a king again. Obama (unfortunately) represents America now, and when our leader bows before another nation, so does America. It is symbolic, but symbols mean things. It may not have been Obama's intent, but he did a very stupid thing that shames America. America does NOT bow before ANYONE, and the leader of the American people does not before ANYONE! We fought Britain twice to prove that to the world. Obama's mistake is no small one.

2. The Original Topic

I think most of you are missing the point of the original poster. His point was that this is now going to allow men into women's restrooms. Predators will no doubt take advantage of this to get into the women's WC and prey on them. I think it is a very serious concern. We should be doing what we can to hinder predators, not make their task easier.

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 15:55

I don't get the big deal about Obama bowing to the Saudi King. Surely it is just a standard gesture of respect, it's not like it means he's now his loyal subject or anything.

On the original topic, this is the sort of nonsense that makes me disdain of the human rights brigade. I don't care if these freaks get discriminated against, the fact is they are not normal and they should not get to act like they are a normal person of whatever gender they prefer.

Ser Clegane

04-09-2009, 16:08

1. Bowing to the Saudi King.

When a president bows to a pope, that is a personal acknowledgement of the sovereignty of God over your individual soul, and the power of the pope as the way to reach it. (I am not Catholic, and this is not my belief) This is not medieval europe, and the pope does not hold the political power over rulers as you used to. Bowing to the pope is a thing of soul, and personal. Bowing to a king is something completely different and very political. We fought a war so that America would never have to bow to a king again. Obama (unfortunately) represents America now, and when our leader bows before another nation, so does America. It is symbolic, but symbols mean things. It may not have been Obama's intent, but he did a very stupid thing that shames America. America does NOT bow before ANYONE, and the leader of the American people does not before ANYONE! We fought Britain twice to prove that to the world. Obama's mistake is no small one.

Very interesting - bowing before a king is symbolic for America as a whole bowing before another country and NOT an expression of "personal" courtesy, while bowing before the pope is a completely personal and private soul thing an NOT a symbol for America as a whole bowing and expressing a specific religeous belief.
That is a very selective way of looking at the issue ... but I recognize your chuzpe of applying double standards to blatantly ~;)

Ronin

04-09-2009, 16:13

Vuk

04-09-2009, 16:19

Very interesting - bowing before a king is symbolic for America as a whole bowing before another country and NOT an expression of "personal" courtesy, while bowing before the pope is a completely personal and private soul thing an NOT a symbol for America as a whole bowing and expressing a specific religeous belief.
That is a very selective way of looking at the issue ... but I recognize your chuzpe of applying double standards to blatantly ~;)

Not at all Ser Clegane. A bow to a king IS a show of political submission. When the President of the United States bows before another nation, he is symbolizing the United States' submission to said nation. A bow before a pope is RELIGIOUS, and thus is personal. I do not have double standards, and would not be upset if Obama bowed before the pope. If he wants to be a catholic and submit himself before the teachings of the papacy, or at least show them humble reverence, that is his choice. When he represents his country to a foriegn power and submits to or shows reverence to them though, that is an entirely different matter. They are two completely seperate things. There is a reason that US presidents do not bow before kings, because the idea that men are equal and should not be put under the submissive control of another is paramount to the idea of the country. US Presidents are supposed to support idea, bye treating other rulers with respect, but NOT signs of submission. A US president NEVER bows to ANYONE. When he does, the US bows, and that is not supposed to happen. Oh yeah, and did he bow before the queen of England BTW?

EDIT: And how can it be a double standard considering that I would be just as disappointed and disgusted if Bush had done the same thing, or if McCain had gotten elected and did the same thing. Get off the victim horse, it has nothing to do with him being Obama, it has to do with him doing what Obama does.

Ronin

04-09-2009, 16:27

Not at all Ser Clegane. A bow to a king IS a show of political submission. When the President of the United States bows before another nation, he is symbolizing the United States' submission to said nation. A bow before a pope is RELIGIOUS, and thus is personal. I do not have double standards, and would not be upset if Obama bowed before the pope. If he wants to be a catholic and submit himself before the teachings of the papacy, or at least show them humble reverence, that is his choice. When he represents his country to a foriegn power and submits to or shows reverence to them though, that is an entirely different matter. They are two completely seperate things. There is a reason that US presidents do not bow before kings, because the idea that men are equal and should not be put under the submissive control of another is paramount to the idea of the country. US Presidents are supposed to support idea, bye treating other rulers with respect, but NOT signs of submission. A US president NEVER bows to ANYONE. When he does, the US bows, and that is not supposed to happen. Oh yeah, and did he bow before the queen of England BTW?

EDIT: And how can it be a double standard considering that I would be just as disappointed and disgusted if Bush had done the same thing, or if McCain had gotten elected and did the same thing. Get off the victim horse, it has nothing to do with him being Obama, it has to do with him doing what Obama does.

The Pope often does statements that are political in nature, even if they are faith related and he is the head of an organization that inserts itself into political decisions in countries all over the world......so yes that´s a double standard.

Vuk

04-09-2009, 16:35

The Pope often does statements that are political in nature, even if they are faith related and he is the head of an organization that inserts itself into political decisions in countries all over the world......so yes that´s a double standard.

The pope is a religious entity, and things of religious importance can and are sometimes of political and social importance to be sure (abortion, gay marriage, etc). Still though, those are personal beliefs, and a show of reverence to the pope shows Obama's personal convictions. That is entirely seperate from bowing to a king though. Obama is there not to pay respect to religious beliefs, but to represent his country to another country. That representation should not be one of America bowing to that country. Obama should definately have showed respect to the Saudi king, as the US should be showing respect, but he should NOT have bowed to the Saudi king, as the US does not bow to any nation or king. I stated in another thread that nothing Obama did could disappoint me because me expectations were so low, but I was wrong. :no: I think you are Ser Clegane are making the mistake though of thinking that I do not like what Obama does because I do not like Obama, when in fact, it is the opposite. I do not like Obama because I do not like the things Obama does. As I said before, if McCain had done this my reaction would be the same...no, a lot stronger probably, because I would be a lot more disappointed in McCain because I would expect more from him.

Louis VI the Fat

04-09-2009, 16:37

A bow before a pope is RELIGIOUS, and thus is personal.Bush is not a Catholic. Plus, the pope is a foreign monarch, like the king of Saudi Arabia.

But speaking of personal then, I am already looking forward to your trying to wriggle yourself out of this:

Bush making out with the Saudi king:

https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/807/bush3dabdullah2panel.jpg (https://img504.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bush3dabdullah2panel.jpg)

Vuk

04-09-2009, 16:44

Bush is not a Catholic. Plus, the pope is a foreign monarch, like the king of Saudi Arabia.

But speaking of personal then, I am already looking forward to your trying to wriggle yourself out of this:

Bush making out with the Saudi king:

https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/807/bush3dabdullah2panel.jpg (https://img504.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bush3dabdullah2panel.jpg)

When the president meets the pope, he meets him as a religious leader, not a political leader.
Wiggle my way out of what? A kiss is a greeting, not a show reverence or submission. People greet each other in the street with a kiss in Saudi Arabia, France, etc. They do not bow to each other in the street, as that is not a greeting, it is a show of submission. When two powers meet and seek to treat each other as equals, they greet each other, not bow to each other. They can kiss, shake hands, etc, that is showing respect and is what two equals do. They do not bow though, because a bow shows rank. If Obama bowed to a South Korean or Japanese leader IN THEIR COUNTRY I would not mind so much (though I still would not agree with the reasoning), because customs are different over there, and a bow is a greeting, and a sign of respect - different than in the US, Europe, and the Middle East. Shaking hands is all he needed to do with the Saudi king. (or he could have kissed him if he wanted :P) The US should greet those it has diplomatic ties with, and should show them respect. The US should never bow before them though.

HoreTore

04-09-2009, 16:45

Can we work gun control and abortion into this thread? That would be KEWL!

I think we're scheduled for another 5 Israel-threads before we have another aborted gun-thread...

Pannonian

04-09-2009, 16:46

Was there any tongue?

Lemur

04-09-2009, 16:46

When the president meets the pope, he meets him as a religious leader, not a political leader.
Sez who? You? The pope is both a religious and a political leader, always has been.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/BushBows.jpg

Can we all at least agree that our President, no matter who he is, should kneel before Zod? (http://www.i-mockery.com/generalzod/default.php)

Meneldil

04-09-2009, 16:46

Item 1: In the 208 year history of our Constitutional republic, no president has ever bowed to anyone. This was actually an issue in the 90s when then President Clinton made a gesture remotely resembling a bow to the Emperor of Japan.

Well, do you agree that the POTUS should respect the protocol? Like, not touching the Queen of England and what not? If you do, then, don't you think he has to bow to the King of Saudi Arabia as well?

Now mind you, I think Saudi Arabia is a shame of a country, and that his king should be kicked in the groin. But you can't really have double standards: bow to the Pope (who is just as much of an idiot) and not bow to the King of S.A.

Item 2: Did I say blow up Somalia? I said do SOMETHING. ANYTHING. I never said anything about blowing up Somalia, I just said our "Vote Present" president is going to have to start earning the title one of these days.

Fair enough. Now I'm not aware of the latest developements, but the situation isn't nearly as one sided as you make it to appear in the other thread. These people are islamic terrorist, they're doing that for a living. You might kill these ones, but other ones will come, as long as piratery is the best way to earn one's life.
And well, as far as I know, most trading ports prohibit armed personal. I kind of think it is not a bad thing, but were free to disagree.

Item 3: No, nor did I remotely say anything of the sort. But can YOU tell the difference between a legitimately transgendered man who feels they belong in the ladies room and a sexual predator that wants to hang out in there?

Okay, I blame either a poorly written title or my broken understanding of English. No, I could probably not make a difference. Hell, I can't tell the difference between a transgendered person and a "normal" one most of the time.
Now I still don't see the issue. Even though I find transsexualism to be weird as hell, it seems kind of a no-brainer to me that transgendered persons should be allowed into the bathroom that fits their sexual orientation.
Sexual predators could enter in women's bathroom before that, and they will continue to do it after that.

A bow to a king IS a show of political submission.
I call double-standard. The King of SA is also in a way a religious leader (Custodian of the Two Mosques is part of his title). Why would Bush's bow to the Pope be alright while Obama's bow to the other dude would not? Is separation of the State and of the Church a characteristic of the US?

Now, whatever, do you think that Obama should not respect the protocol when dealing with any other foreign leader? Should he hug and pat the Queen? Should he high-five the Pope and the King of Saudi Arabia?

If you have no respect for your country, that's your right.
Save me the condescending tone. I loathe monarchy, I loathe Saudi Arabia, just as much as you do. I'm probably one of the most radical republicans of that forum. I can't help but have a good laugh when british tabloids go crazy because someone dared to touch the Queen.

However, international relations are ruled by protocol and tradition. If the tradition is to bow in front of the King of some country, well, the POTUS has two choices:
1 - Bow and be done with it, even if it leaves a bad taste in his mouth
2 - Don't bow and cause outrage, or piss off one of his allies.

Vuk

04-09-2009, 16:54

Well, do you agree that the POTUS should respect the protocol? Like, not touching the Queen of England and what not? If you do, then, don't you think he has to bow to the King of Saudi Arabia as well?

Now mind you, I think Saudi Arabia is a shame of a country, and that his king should be kicked in the groin. But you can't really have double standards: bow to the Pope (who is just as much of an idiot) and not bow to the King of S.A.

Fair enough. Now I'm not aware of the latest developements, but the situation isn't nearly as one sided as you make it to appear in the other thread. These people are islamic terrorist, they're doing that for a living. You might kill these ones, but other ones will come, as long as piratery is the best way to earn one's life.
And well, as far as I know, most trading ports prohibit armed personal. I kind of think it is not a bad thing, but were free to disagree.

Okay, I blame either a poorly written title or my broken understanding of English. No, I could probably not make a difference. Hell, I can't tell the difference between a transgendered person and a "normal" one most of the time.
Now I still don't see the issue. Even though I find transsexualism to be weird as hell, it seems kind of a no-brainer to me that transgendered persons should be allowed into the bathroom that fits their sexual orientation.
Sexual predators could enter in women's bathroom before that, and they will continue to do it after that.

I call double-standard. The King of SA is also in a way a religious leader (Custodian of the Two Mosques is part of his title). Why would Bush's bow to the Pope be alright while Obama's bow to the other dude would not? Is separation of the State and of the Church a characteristic of the US?

Now, whatever, do you think that Obama should not respect the protocol when dealing with any other foreign leader? Should he hug and pat the Queen? Should he high-five the Pope and the King of Saudi Arabia?

Save me the condescending tone. I loathe monarchy, I loathe Saudi Arabia, just as much as you do. I'm probably one of the most radical republicans of that forum. I can't help but have a good laugh when british tabloids go crazy because someone dared to touch the Queen.

However, international relations are ruled by protocol and tradition. If the tradition is to bow in front of the King of some country, well, the POTUS has two choices:
1 - Bow and be done with it, even if it leaves a bad taste in his mouth
2 - Don't bow and cause outrage, or piss off one of his allies.

Obama was not meeting the Saudi king personally to pay respect to his religion, he was meeting him in a political function. When Bush met with the Pope, he was not meeting him for important war plans with the Vatican nation, he meeting him as the leader of the Catholic religion. Also, respecting the costumes of the queen by not touching her is not showing submission to her, and Michelle is not leader of the country, Barrack is. Surely you see the difference? A US president does not bow to another country (again, the two exceptions I see possible being Japan and Korea, but still think it is better to not bow at all), and if the country is not willing to honour OUR corner stone belief of freedom, then :daisy: them. What other leaders of countries bowed before the Saudi king? I am sure he would not be offended because the rest of the world did not submit to him as his subjects did.
If it is a custom of a country to have foriegn powers pay reverence to them, then they have serious imperial ambitions and we should not be dealing with them. Don't play games, you know it would not have been an insult to SA for our president not to bow to its king.

Crazed Rabbit

04-09-2009, 16:55

Nowadays, any sick weirdo can dress himself as a woman and enter womens' rooms with the purpose of harassing them.

A law allowing men with transgender issues to enter womens' rooms won't change that.

Note: I'm not really in favor of such regulations, I'm just saying that you should be concerned about sick weirdo's, not about a possible bill to add "gender identity and expression" to discrimination laws (allthough there is something to say about the non discrimination of such people, but, as open minded as I am, allowing men dressed as a woman into womens' showers goes a step too far imo).

The thing is, with the new law, the sick weirdos can sneak into woman's restrooms legally, and just claim they have some gender identity issue or something.

CR

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 16:55

Both the Pope and the Saudi Kings have temporal and spiritual positions. The Vatican has been a state since 1929 remember.

Alexander the Pretty Good

04-09-2009, 17:04

So the Pope and the Saud walk into a ladies' restroom...

Strike For The South

04-09-2009, 17:20

I would bow to the pope to and I'm a catholic hating baptist.

Crazed Rabbit

04-09-2009, 17:37

The Pope isn't royalty, ie someone who got their position because of who their were born to.

And I don't think this sort of deference should be shown any royalty, be it the Queen of England or the King of Saudi Arabia.

CR

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 17:48

CR, Vuk, Don, I took the time to get you free Arabic lessons and Quran when Obama surrenders the U.S. to Saudi Arabia.

It's not a big deal at all. Osama bin Ladin will not shout "Allah Jihad! We have gotten him to bow to the Saudi! American is destroyed!". We won't enter a depression. We won't be nuked. It's a non-issue people are trying to blow up into an issue.

Tribesman

04-09-2009, 17:53

There is a reason that US presidents do not bow before kings
And that reason is that they do bow .:yes:
Oh sorry Vuk I didn't mean to point out that your whole arguement is as usual complete bollox .

A US president NEVER bows to ANYONE.
What a fantasy land you live in .
Though it was funny when Nixon bowed to the royal footman before he went inside and did his proper bow for the British queen .
So I wonder when the 10 previous US presidents did thier little bow for the current British head of State did they do it to her because she is head of State or because she is the head of the religion ?

And how can it be a double standard considering that I would be just as disappointed and disgusted if Bush had done the same thing
Really ? Then undoubtably you will be able to show some fascinating examples you provided when previous Presidents did the same thing :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Sasaki Kojiro

04-09-2009, 18:06

I have to say, this feels like one of those "flag pin" stories...

Lemur

04-09-2009, 18:10

If it gives Fox News something to hyperventilate about for the next 24-hour news cycle, it's all good.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 18:12

If it gives Fox News something to hyperventilate about for the next 24-hour news cycle, it's all good.

Do you watch Hannity? It's a parody of John Stewert. That's all it is man, a big joke. Not even they believe this, time to go home guys, game over.

Lemur

04-09-2009, 18:18

Speaking of Jon Stewart, I think he pretty much nailed it (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/baracknophobia-hannity-ba_n_184568.html) a couple of nights ago when he said (more or less), "You've been out of power for ten weeks. Pace yourselves."

Stewart has good nights and bad, but that one was dead on.

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 18:23

The US does have a habbit of showing a lack of respect towards other cultures. You Yanks need to swallow your pride and follow the customs like everyone else!

You don't even have to believe these cultures are equal to your own, but its only decent to at least tolerate them when you make a peaceful visit to their countries. When in Rome...

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 18:48

So I wonder when the 10 previous US presidents did thier little bow for the current British head of State did they do it to her because she is head of State or because she is the head of the religion ?

Spot on. :2thumbsup:

Also a little historical research might mave helped. The colonists beef wasn't with the King, it was with Parliament. They went as far as to petition the King to assist in their cause. Of course it was in vain because the King, as now, didn't weild any sort of power. That'd been sorted out 100 years before when we chopped off the Kings head and became a republic.

A shame when people don't know or understand the history of their country.

Vuk

04-09-2009, 18:49

And that reason is that they do bow .:yes:
Oh sorry Vuk I didn't mean to point out that your whole arguement is as usual complete bollox .

What a fantasy land you live in .
Though it was funny when Nixon bowed to the royal footman before he went inside and did his proper bow for the British queen .
So I wonder when the 10 previous US presidents did thier little bow for the current British head of State did they do it to her because she is head of State or because she is the head of the religion ?

Really ? Then undoubtably you will be able to show some mindless rants you did when previous Presidents did the same thing :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Ignoring the insults that seem to characterize most of your posts, comparing obama to nixon hardly does him any credit Tribes. I do not know if that is how you defend people you like "Oh John, he is not a bad guy, Nixon did the same thing!" :laugh4: Esp when you are justifying his action by saying Nixon did the same thing, it hardly helps. If former President Bush did the same thing, then yes, I am disgusted with the act. I have never seen anything about him doing it though, and I will not believe you on it unless you show me proof. No offense Tribesy, but you were never really known for the reliability of your sources. (and in case you convienently forget, I have ridiculed Bush in the past for getting too "friendly" with the Saudis. Friendly, a six letter word...)

Vuk

04-09-2009, 18:54

Spot on. :2thumbsup:

Also a little historical research might mave helped. The colonists beef wasn't with the King, it was with Parliament. They went as far as to petition the King to assist in their cause. Of course it was in vain because the King, as now, didn't weild any sort of power. That'd been sorted out 100 years before when we chopped off the Kings head and became a republic.

A shame when people don't know or understand the history of their country.

Spot off I am afraid. The colonists wanted to give their king and the monarchy a chance, but when they were refused, they fought against the king and the monarchy. They found out that working with a monarch did not work.

Rhyfelwyr

04-09-2009, 18:57

Also a little historical research might mave helped. The colonists beef wasn't with the King, it was with Parliament. They went as far as to petition the King to assist in their cause. Of course it was in vain because the King, as now, didn't weild any sort of power. That'd been sorted out 100 years before when we chopped off the Kings head and became a republic.

A shame when people don't know or understand the history of their country.

[sidetrack rant]Scots today make the same error when they think 1707 Union = evil Hanoverian monarchy. I don't know why they do this, since parliamentary sovereignty was one major issue of contention when the MP's left Scotland for Westminster. If anything, it was their beloved Stuarts who attempted Union through the monarchs back in 1610.[/sidetrack rant]

InsaneApache

04-09-2009, 19:16

Spot off I am afraid. The colonists wanted to give their king and the monarchy a chance, but when they were refused, they fought against the king and the monarchy. They found out that working with a monarch did not work.

Oh dear. Did you understand my post?

That sounds a bit condescending but it's not meant to be.

In the word of Oliver Cromwell, "Parliament is not the King and the King is not Parliament".

Hope that helps clear things up.

KarlXII

04-09-2009, 19:18

Tribesman

04-09-2009, 20:55

comparing obama to nixon hardly does him any credit Tribes.
Errrrrr... did Obama bow to a footman ?

No offense Tribesy, but you were never really known for the reliability of your sources.
Sources ? :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You mean I am reliably known to not post links .

If former President Bush did the same thing, then yes, I am disgusted with the act.
Its quite simple Vuk , minor breaches of diplomatic protocol make the news in the country concerned in media outlets that look for little stories to get outraged about .
Check the coverage of the last 10 American Presidents official visits with the British queen .

Samurai Waki

04-09-2009, 23:10

I always thought kissing the ring on a rulers finger was an act of submission. Perhaps, Vuk, you need to read a history book. A bow, in every culture irregardless is a sign of a respect, in so much that you are willing to treat such a person as an equal, the deeper the bow the more respect you showing them. But this is not a sign of fealty, as a matter of fact, only a hundred years ago bowing to all heads of state and foreign dignitaries was diplomatic protocol. The discussion did not begin until both sides recognized the need for respect in whatever it was that they were discussing. Of course this did not mean that they would agree with each other, or even that they were friendly with each other.

Such things may have changed in the modern western world, however tradition still exists in places like the British Royal Family, and in Saudi Arabia. Respecting that tradition is not shameful, or submissive, it is just acknowledgment that you intend to treat them with the utmost respect.

Lemur

04-10-2009, 03:34

Wonkette has the final, and rather profane (http://wonkette.com/407662/wingnuts-angry-that-obama-didnt-suck-off-saudi-prince-like-bush-always-did), take on this contrived little issue. Let's get back to something that really matters, like flag pins!

Beefy187

04-10-2009, 09:19

In Japan, bow is equivelent of "hello" or "how are you"

Submissive bow is what we call Dogeza, where we get on our knees.

I really don't see the problem doing a small bow.

Marshal Murat

04-10-2009, 12:13

The colonists wanted to give their king and the monarchy a chance to represent them properly in Parliament and repeal the numerous Acts, but when they were refused, they fought against the British colonial rule. They found out that working with taxation without representation doesn't work

So is that why, in the basic document outlining our reasons for revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence) the King (or tyrant) is mentioned quite a few times?

The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
It then goes on to list reasons for our rebellion against the Crown, not against parliament.
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,

So, tell me again exactly why these contemporary writers, with full knowledge of the British legal and political system, would constantly highlight the role that King George played in creating the revolution rather than identify Parliament as the source of all evils?

Husar

04-10-2009, 12:39

[...]and when our leader bows before another nation, so does America.

So essentially you are all slaves of your king president?

If I am a free man then the only actions that are representative for me are those of myself, yes, you elected him, so you actually approve of him doing that or you elected him, yet are not responsible for everything he does in which case he would not represent you with everything he does since you are free humans.

Apart from that I think it's a complete non-issue and only old-fashioned royalists would really care but I heard in America noone listens to them or cares what they think.

If you really think Angela Merkel represents me then I must disappoint you as she is married to a guy and I don't want to do that. There is something as taking this whole representation thing too far IMO.

On transgenderals, as has been said, they can enter the toilets anyway if there is noone around and if there is someone around then they can't really do much anyway. A public toilet that is not supervised/cleaned is not a place where I would want my kids to go anyway. :sweatdrop:

KarlXII

04-10-2009, 20:22

So is that why, in the basic document outlining our reasons for revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence) the King (or tyrant) is mentioned quite a few times?

It then goes on to list reasons for our rebellion against the Crown, not against parliament.

So, tell me again exactly why these contemporary writers, with full knowledge of the British legal and political system, would constantly highlight the role that King George played in creating the revolution rather than identify Parliament as the source of all evils?

King George was the head of Britain. He represented Britain in all affairs. Naturally, being the King, he is responsible ultimately for all actions tooken by Great Britain. It is natural the colonists mention him in the Declaration.

The Stamp Act was passed by Parliament
The Sugar Act was passed by Parliament.
The Tea Act was passed by Parliament.

The colonial's real beef was with Parliament passing numerous Acts without their representation, and that is fact.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

04-10-2009, 20:41

King George was the head of Britain. He represented Britain in all affairs. Naturally, being the King, he is responsible ultimately for all actions tooken by Great Britain. It is natural the colonists mention him in the Declaration.

...

KarlXII

04-10-2009, 20:46

...

....

Vuk

04-10-2009, 21:13

....

...

I think he was pointing out that you answered your own question.

KarlXII

04-10-2009, 21:15

...

I think he was pointing out that you answered your own question.

And? Obama bowing to the Saudi King does not mean he will surrender the U.S., piss on the Declaration and burn the White House down. The whole "issue" is non-existant.

Vuk

04-10-2009, 21:21

And? Obama bowing to the Saudi King does not mean he will surrender the U.S., piss on the Declaration and burn the White House down. The whole "issue" is non-existant.

Burning a flag will not surrender the US, :daisy: on the Declaration, and burn the White House down either, but it is still a sign of disrespect. I know the two are not equatable, and I am sure that Obama did not do it on purpose, but it nontheless was a stupid mistake that is an issue. I am not saying it makes him incapable of leading, but simply that he should be a little more thoughtful when he is representing his country. I never tried to make a big deal out of it. The only reason I talked about it to such a length, is because you and other posters talked about what a non-issue it is at such a length. It IS an issue, maybe no a major issue, but it is important, and it is an issue. I did not consider it big enough to post about, and normally would have just shook my head, but people were posting saying that it doesn't matter, it was just a sign of respect, etc.