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

[Vuk]

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]

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]

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]

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

exactly....

Looking at the bright side of all this...I can´t wait to see what the daily show is going to do with this.....


You right wing people have to cool it with these made-up outrages.....it´s almost 4 years until the next presidential election....going by this pace you´re gonna get outrage fatigue.

[Vuk]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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:

[Vuk]

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:

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.

[Pannonian]

Was there any tongue?

[Lemur]

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.



Can we all at least agree that our President, no matter who he is, should kneel before Zod?

[Husar]

[...]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.