EDIT: Damned 'i' button sticks.
This would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous.
Obama's Southeast Asia Trip All Style, No Substance
Posted 11/20/2012 07:01 PM ET
Bun Rany, Cambodia's first lady, gives President Obama a "sampeah" greeting at a tilt usually reserved for servants. View Enlarged Image
Diplomacy: So amid all the colorful and flirty photos from President Obama's first tour of Southeast Asia, what did he actually accomplish? As usual, he served himself politically in what was largely a Potemkin mission abroad.
It was obvious enough from the rubelike gaffes that the president hasn't been particularly interested or attentive to the affairs of Thailand, Burma or Cambodia as he made his first trip since his re-election. It was pretty much all style over substance.
In his tour of Burma, billed as an historic first visit since Burma's 2007 move to democracy, it was clear he was in way over his head, even on small things. Obama repeatedly referred to the country's Nobel Peace Prize-winning leader Aung San Suu Kyi as Aung Yan Suu Kyi, an astonishing error given her global fame.
He also bungled the norms of Burmese polite address, calling Thein Sein, the nation's leader "President Sein," an error comparable to addressing Cambodia's Pol Pot as Mr. Pot. My commentary: what an idiot.
Here are the juicy bits:But he also undermined his supposed democracy mission, first by telling the Burmese leaders that he too wished he could govern without opposition, calling into question whether he himself believed in the representative government he was advocating. Interesting, that...very glad we elected a Christian President that believes in democracy and freedom.
It didn't help that he ignored the real heroes who helped push Burma toward a more open system — President and Mrs. Bush, as well as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Sens. John McCain and Mitch McConnell, seeming to take credit for it himself.
That emptiness of purpose left showy photo-ops in all three countries, with the president flirting around with Thailand's photogenic Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and visiting the Buddha statues, effectively trivializing Thailand as a tourist trap instead of a major trading partner and the U.S.'s oldest ally in Asia.
Neither trade nor military matters were addressed substantively. Obama's lecture to Thailand about its democracy needing "improvement" was a fairly strong signal that he had no intention of restoring free-trade talks with the Thais, who lost their access to that a few years ago after a military coup that has since restored democracy.
The other cornerstone of the U.S.-Thai relationship — the military — wasn't advanced either, given Obama's efforts to cut the U.S. Navy to 1918 levels even as he talks of a "strategic pivot" to Asia.
No substance, no influence. Nothing underlined this quite like the lack of crowds greeting Obama in all three nations. When a leader's visit is cause for hope and a catalyst for change — think Pope John Paul II's 1978 Poland visit — crowds turn out. Obama, supposedly representing the greatest nation on earth, couldn't draw so much as an Occupy-sized crowd. Nor did he draw respect.
On his trip to Cambodia, a country he claimed didn't deserve a visit due to its strongman government, first lady Bun Rany greeted Obama with a traditional "sampeah" pressed-hands greeting reserved for servants, a little dig that was probably lost on him but not to Asians.
So what is really Obama's tour about? Apparently a get-out-of-town photo-op all about himself as a means of avoiding pressing problems back home. The Asians deserve better — and so do the Americans.
http://news.investors.com/print/ibd-editorials/112012-634213-obama-southeast-asian-trip-more-style-than-substance.aspx
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes. Let's discuss the dangers of:
Anything in particular you'd like to discuss?
1. Electing a leader who openly acknowledges he wishes he oils govern without opposition;
2. Has so little appreciation of foreign relations that he offends important trade partners in an important region;
3. Has so little standing in the international community that the wife of a minor country's Peime Minister openly insults him.
BONUS ROUND: Explain why Obama would deeply bow before the king of a Muslim country.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Obama's speech in context strongly supports the US system of separation of powers despite the desperate attempts of the usual suspects to distort what he said:
Yes. Let's discuss the dangers of:
1. Electing a leader who openly acknowledges he wishes he oils govern without opposition;
2. Has so little appreciation of foreign relations that he offends important trade partners in an important region;
3. Has so little standing in the international community that the wife of a minor country's Peime Mi ...[text shortened]... him.
BONUS ROUND: Explain why Obama would deeply bow before the king of a Muslim country.
And to protect the freedom of all the voters, those in power must accept constraints. That’s what our American system is designed to do. Now, America may have the strongest military in the world, but it must submit to civilian control. I, as the President of the United States, make determinations that the military then carries out, not the other way around. As President and Commander-In-Chief, I have that responsibility because I’m accountable to the people.
Now, on other hand, as President, I cannot just impose my will on Congress — the Congress of the United States — even though sometimes I wish I could. The legislative branch has its own powers and its own prerogatives, and so they check my power and balance my power. I appoint some of our judges, but I cannot tell them how to rule, because every person in America — from a child living in poverty to me, the President of the United States — is equal under the law. And a judge can make a determination as to whether or not I am upholding the law or breaking the law. And I am fully accountable to that law.
And I describe our system in the United States because that’s how you must reach for the future that you deserve — a future where a single prisoner of conscience is one too many. You need to reach for a future where the law is stronger than any single leader, because it’s accountable to the people. You need to reach for a future where no child is made to be a soldier and no woman is exploited, and where the laws protect them even if they’re vulnerable, even if they’re weak; a future where national security is strengthened by a military that serves under civilians and a Constitution that guarantees that only those who are elected by the people may govern.
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/11/19/president-obamas-speech-in-burma-myanmar-the-major-speech-of-his-trip/
You should read the entire speech.
This passage offers some hope for even people like you who have been so embittered by the rejection of your beliefs by the majority that you have become unhinged:
We’ve tasted the bitterness of civil war and segregation, but our history shows us that hatred in the human heart can recede; that the lines between races and tribes fade away. And what’s left is a simple truth: e pluribus unum — that’s what we say in America. Out of many, we are one nation and we are one people. And that truth has, time and again, made our union stronger. It has made our country stronger. It’s part of what has made America great.
Originally posted by no1marauderEmbittered is the wrong word. Sad is better. Not for me - for the people who will realize too late that what they voted for was bad for America; for the middle-class people who hurt themselves voting for Obama; and mostly, for the very young who had no say and were born into servitude.
This passage offers some hope for even people like you who have been so embittered by the rejection of your beliefs by the majority that you have become unhinged:
We’ve tasted the bitterness of civil war and segregation, but our history shows us that hatred in the human heart can recede; that the lines between races and tribes fade away. And what’s l ...[text shortened]... ur union stronger. It has made our country stronger. It’s part of what has made America great.
You're of the generation that created this looming disaster. The least you could do was realize your idiocy and let a responsible generation fix it; at least not make it worse. Instead, you voted yourself your grandchildrens' money, and stole their future and prosperity.
Originally posted by sasquatch672🙄🙄😴😴
Embittered is the wrong word. Sad is better. Not for me - for the people who will realize too late that what they voted for was bad for America; for the middle-class people who hurt themselves voting for Obama; and mostly, for the very young who had no say and were born into servitude.
You're of the generation that created this looming disaster. T ...[text shortened]... Instead, you voted yourself your grandchildrens' money, and stole their future and prosperity.
The country is steadily recovering from the disasters inflicted on it by people who believed in your ideology. The future is bright. And you hate that and your fellow countrymen who have rejected your warped ideas.
You're a pathetic sight and you have my pity.
Originally posted by no1marauderFull employment in eight years at the current pace. A President who added more to the debt than all other presidents combined. Less wealth for everybody. A crushing, $20 trillion in debt. Your grandchildren - working to pay off the money you just voted yourself. I'd be very proud of that last bit. The future is bright? Tell that to your average 22-year-old.
🙄🙄😴😴
The country is steadily recovering from the disasters inflicted on it by people who believed in your ideology. The future is bright. And you hate that and your fellow countrymen who have rejected your warped ideas.
You're a pathetic sight and you have my pity.
Bush was bad. Obama is terrible. You're the delusional one.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
Originally posted by sasquatch672What about the Republican led congress - they have a lower rating that the president. Should they not take some of the blame?
Full employment in eight years at the current pace. A President who added more to the debt than all other presidents combined. Less wealth for everybody. A crushing, $20 trillion in debt. Your grandchildren - working to pay off the money you just voted yourself. I'd be very proud of that last bit. The future is bright? Tell that to your average 22-year-old.
Bush was bad. Obama is terrible. You're the delusional one.
COriginally posted by sasquatch672At least you admit Bush was bad.
Full employment in eight years at the current pace. A President who added more to the debt than all other presidents combined. Less wealth for everybody. A crushing, $20 trillion in debt. Your grandchildren - working to pay off the money you just voted yourself. I'd be very proud of that last bit. The future is bright? Tell that to your average 22-year-old.
Bush was bad. Obama is terrible. You're the delusional one.
Not just W.
But both of them.
In what I have seen in my limited experience of US politics,
Nixon, Reagan, Bush,Bush.........bad.
Kennedy, Clinton, Obama,Obama......good.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Eight years? Unemployment has dropped by over 2% in less than two years.
Full employment in eight years at the current pace. A President who added more to the debt than all other presidents combined. Less wealth for everybody. A crushing, $20 trillion in debt. Your grandchildren - working to pay off the money you just voted yourself. I'd be very proud of that last bit. The future is bright? Tell that to your average 22-year-old.
Bush was bad. Obama is terrible. You're the delusional one.
The debt as a percentage of GNP isn't particularly high. Once we stop subsidizing the wealthy by taxing their incomes at ridiculously low levels (esp. capital gains, dividends and inheritances) and end the never ending war against Muslims that you support, we'll probably start running a surplus like we did in the later years of the Clinton administration.
Young adults voted for Obama by an overwhelming margin: 18-29 year olds went 60%-37% for him over Romney.http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main
They were asked and utterly rejected your views.
Of course, our economic woes are directly related to policies that you support:
From 1983 to 2010, about three-quarters of the total growth in household wealth accrued to the top 5 percent of households. Low-income and middle-income households, on aggregate, actually got poorer over that same period.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/income/income_inequality/index.html
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyI notice you left out Carter.
At least you admit Bush was bad.
Not just W.
But both of them.
In what I have seen in my limited experience of US politics,
Nixon, Reagan, Bush,Bush.........bad.
Kennedy, Clinton, Obama,Obama......good.
Under Reagan, the economy grew, the government shrunk, and America had a sense of optimism that simply was not there under Carter. Bush I successfully prosecuted a war that enjoyed broad, worldwide support. Clinton massively reformed welfare. Kennedy - is there a more famous line, from a more famous inaugural address, than "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"?
Bush and Obama can stand side by side and take credit for this debt disaster, but Obama is by far more responsible. Of the many things wrong with Bush, one of the biggest was that he created the conditions where a dilettante, amateur, hack, racist politician with absolutely nothing suggesting he was qualified to be President could beat arguably the most honorable member of either Congressional chamber.
Originally posted by sasquatch672"Racist". 🙄🙄
I notice you left out Carter.
Under Reagan, the economy grew, the government shrunk, and America had a sense of optimism that simply was not there under Carter. Bush I successfully prosecuted a war that enjoyed broad, worldwide support. Clinton massively reformed welfare. Kennedy - is there a more famous line, from a more famous inaugural address, to be President could beat arguably the most honorable member of either Congressional chamber.
Psychosis. And probably projection.
Your "analysis" is hypocritical; you lambaste Obama for "A President who added more to the debt than all other presidents combined" yet praise Reagan when the EXACT SAME STATEMENT is applicable to him!