As far as I’ve seen so far – correct me if I’m wrong – but it seems President Obama will not emulate President Bush’s hand-holding (literally) with the Saudi royal family.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
I (Don’t) Wanna Hold Your Hand
June 4th, 2009
52 Comments
Where Obama went with David Axelrod to Iowa to make their partnership official, Republican Bush brought the Saud King to his Texas hideaway to make their partnership official.
Republicans really Love their Dictators, especially Oil Dictators.
That’s why the Republican Motto is ‘Drill, baby, drill.’
We’re still not sure if Obama bowed before his king.
“We’re still not sure if Obama bowed before his king.”
No we aren’t sure William. But I guess we’ll have to wait with the
knowledge that the previous POTUS bent over for all of Saudi Arabia.
Well what we do know is that he hasn’t bowed before William’s king (El Rushbo The 1st).
Texas Republican Bush kissing the Saud King?
They are much more progressive in Texas than anyone knew!
Bow…hold hands….whatever. Just do something to get us off of foreign oil.
It would be nice if he’d just admit that he bowed to him though. It doesn’t really bother me. He did it to show respect, not subservience. And fair-minded people understand this. Bush did the same thing. But Obama should just stop lying about it. That’s the most irritating part of the whole thing.
As a nation we’ve got more important things to worry about than who is hand-holding.
Right winger “yo mama”: “Just do something to get us off of foreign oil.”
On this we agree.
How it might be done, though, is where we disagree.
I’d go the big gubmint route of investing in energy research and public/private partnerships (solar, wind, wave, experimental approaches) and add a national investment in a “smart” energy grid.
What would be the private solutions you think might work, “yo mama”?
“Just do something to get us off of foreign oil. ”
It’s simple…drill, dig, and split more atoms, but that won’t be allowed. So, we’re stuck with holding hands and bowing to dictators.
Bush did the same thing.
Nuh-uh. Bush got to second base.
“william”, the problem with drilling for oil, digging for coal, splitting atms is that all three are finite resources that have serious drawbacks.
Solar, wind, and wave energy are nearly infinite and other experimental approaches might also be nearly infinite (growing algae into fuel, for instance). Most of these energy sources could be implemented with few, if any, serious drawbacks.
The ideal of energy independence is eliminating our reliance on finite resources, especially ones with serious drawbacks.
It’s only because of the right wing’s unwillingness to work with US as a nation that we are prevented from eliminating our reliance on finite resources and instead are “stuck with holding hands and bowing to dictators.”
An investment, as a nation, to eliminate our need for using and competing for diminishing and toxic resources, is the best thing we could do for the future of our nation.
It’s a national security interest, it’s a domestic energy supply interest, it’s a national economic interest, it’s even a health and climate interest.
What william said. We should explore all possible avenues. Temporarily at the expense of the environment if needed in my opinion.
william and yo mama: The left keeps moving the goal posts.
First, it was remove our dependence on foreign oil
Then, it was, without doing any harm to the environment (as “we” define ‘harm’)
Then, it was, without disrupting animal habitats (as we define “disruption”, as we define “habitat”)
Now, we have “we must eliminate our dependence on finite resources”, this, despite the fact that the sun never shines anywhere for more than 12 hours, and the wind never blows all day, every day.
Frank,
Agreed. Wind power is questioned because of bird kills, noise and eyesore issues. Solar power is limited because of technology and you can’t cover up the desert ecosystem will the millions of panels necessary.
The “progressive”/environmental argument isn’t really “reducing dependence on foreign oil”. It’s reducing consumption of any and all energy at any and all cost. Humans and the western standard of living be damned. They want everyone on the planet to be equally miserable and equally poor.
Why hold hands when you can share bling-bling??
President Obama was awarded Saudi Arabia’s highest honor yesterday — an elaborate gold necklace and medallion fit for a king or a rap mogul.
“Goodness gracious, that’s something there,” an awestruck Obama said when a royal aide approached him with the massive chain.
A beaming King Abdullah — who hosted Obama in an ornate meeting room decked out with opulent chandeliers, marble columns and engraved mirrors — presented the gift to the president…
…”Those are only given to the very few friends of the king, and you are certainly one of those,” Abdullah said.
Most of these energy sources [Solar, Wind, Wave] could be implemented with few, if any, serious drawbacks.
Well, except for cost and portability. You’d have to admit those are two pretty big ones.
Solar/Wind/Wave/Algae/Unicorn Farts will become our basis of energy when one thing and one thing only happens: it becomes cheap enough to mass produce enough to satisfy market demand.
Right winger “Frank ‘Works for Iranian Oil’ DiSalle” insists that the sun only shines 12 hours a day.
Last I checked the sun shines 24 hours a day and is expected to (as I understand it) for about 5 billion more years.
Ocean waves also go 24 hours a day and the tide operates predictably and reliably every day. Both wave and tide will be going until the sun goes nova or we lose our moon, neither of which are expected to happen for billions of years.
Wind is more mercurial, but wind will likely be blowing somewhere for as long as the tides are rising and falling. And windmills should be able to be built in a way to be able to dismantle them and move them to wherever the wind is.
And your first goal post is the same as your last goal post, “Frank”: “First, it was remove our dependence on foreign oil” … “Now, we have “we must eliminate our dependence on finite resources””.
All of your “goal posts” can be achieved simultaneously, we can eliminate “our dependence on foreign oil” (a finite resource) while simultaneously minimizing “harm to the environment” and minimizing “disrupting animal habitats”.
How?
Use a combination of every clean, safe, environmentally sound technology possible.
Solar, wave, and wind technologies are just for starts.
There’s geothermal, algae-to-oil, hydrogen, and a national investment in clean energy technology research could come up with novel alternatives like fusion or the mythical “clean coal”.
As an byproduct we’d eventually be creating more energy than we are currently using, we’d be energy independent, we’d increase our national security, we wouldn’t be shipping BILLIONS of dollars every week to foreign nations that don’t like US, and we’d relieve the competition for diminishing resources.
And also, as a byproduct, we might save the planet’s climate and ecosystems from carbon* poisoning.
* carbon might be natural but don’t try breathing it exclusively unless you are trying to win a Darwin Award.
Why hold hands when you can share bling-bling??
That’s been done before, too. Try not to get your outrage meter from Diebold next time.
I like this this part in particular:
“The Saudi royal family’s gifts dwarfed those of other world leaders..”
Right winger “SaveFarris”: “Solar/Wind/Wave/Algae/Unicorn Farts will become our basis of energy when one thing and one thing only happens: it becomes cheap enough to mass produce enough to satisfy market demand.”
That’s right wing defeatism, “SaveFarris”.
Which is why it took the Democratic Party to win World War II and the Republican Party managed to hand off a losing hand in Afghanistan, one of the weakest nations on earth, even after over seven years of fighting.
A national strategy for energy independence has always been the solution.
Instead of one Manhattan Project there should be FIFTY (50).
Every State should be involved. Every State University should be involved. Private Universities and private corporations should be encouraged to be involved as well.
A long term national investment in energy technology has the possibility of tremendous rewards for our country.
Energy independence would mean we wouldn’t be shipping hundreds of billions of dollars a year to the Middle East and Russia and Venezuela.
Energy independence would give US a technological edge over China AND an give US an exportable commodity if we kept the manufacturing base in our country.
Energy independence would eventually increase supply, reduce prices, and provide a whole new energy era.
Left winger “News ‘I don’t live in the real world’ Reference” thinks that possible energy sources will provide us with real energy.
And, also , Professor Whiz Bang, if the sun were shining anywhere 24 hours a day, that place would make the desert look like a garden spot.
Oh, wait… Maybe there are two suns on your planet …
Energy independence would eventually increase supply, reduce prices, and provide a whole new energy era.
And I could make a ham sandwich, if I had some ham, if I had some bread.
“Why hold hands when you can share bling-bling??”
and then a Rap Mogul comparison-
man some of you guys aren’t even trying to cloak the racism anymore huh!? I mean where was the Rap Mogul comparison when Bush got himself a medal? Or did it not come to mind then for some strange unexplicable reason?
“That’s right wing defeatism”
No, it’s reality. You can’t force people to buy something they don’t want and can’t use, at least not in the long term. What you’re calling for is a repeal to the Law of Supply and Demand. And not even “The One” is that powerful.
The market, as always, will dictate the terms. At some point, oil will become so expensive that smart people will start looking for alternatives. Then, a Rockefeller-type will invent the next great thing, that’s cheap and easy and clean. And the reason he/she will do it will be the same motivation humans have had since the beginning of time: greed. So he’ll sell it and make a killing. At which point, we tax the bejesus out of him.
Problem solved.
Damn Frankie, you are old! See, the Earth revolves around the Sun and therefore its light hits the Earth’s surface SOMEwhere 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
So then you have the problem of how to STORE this electricity when the Sun in any particular venue is down. Fortunately, we’ve got that taken care of too, by way of the power grid. In addition, the existence of the power grid means that you don’t HAVE to have solar panels on YOUR house to get solar power.
You’re welcome.
Right winger “Frank DiSalle” shows why Galileo was denounced by right wing Theocratic authoritarians.
They lack imagination.
They are geocentric and even after BIG CLUES still failed to understand heliocentrism.
Our single sun shines on earth 24 hours a day, “Frank”.
If you could get your head out of the
sandearth and could put your head far, far above the clouds…… how many clues do you need, “Frank”?…
Even on earth there are places and times on earth that the sun shines 24 hours a day.
But get off of earth and most of our solar system has sunshine all of the time.
There are hypothetical ways to put a solar array in space that receives sunshine 24 hours a day and then send that energy back to earth (space ladder, laser…).
But back on earth…
Solar, wave, wind, geothermal, algae-to-oil, and hydrogen are already on the edge of being sustainable, they just needs investment and initiative.
Germany is going solar and Iceland is going geothermal. Both of those countries, as democratic nations, decided to make themselves world leaders in those technologies.
My list isn’t exhaustive. There are a lot of other energy technologies that could be legitimate.
Bottling “Unicorn Farts” like the mythical “clean coal”, or figuring out ways how hydro power might not mean destroying entire natural ecosystems, or figuring out how nuclear energy isn’t pre-9/11 thinking, or figuring out how biofuels might not eat up precious land and food, researching these energy technologies might develop less environmentally harmful methods for those technologies or completely new ones.
Solar, wave, wind, geothermal, algae-to-oil, and hydrogen are already on the edge of being sustainable, they just needs investment and initiative.
And incentives. A comprehensive Cap ‘n’ Trade* program may be just the ticket.
*Note: C&T** does not preclude nuclear, coal, clean coal, or any other type of energy use, but the most efficient (least polluting) will rule the day in the long run.
**I’m going on a limb and predicting that the vast majority of the resident wingnuts do not understand C&T. But what can you do?
I am bowing out of this absurd thread…
The same people who called an anti-missile program “Star Wars” are now suggesting that we harness the energy of the sun using satellites…
Could we just open up some nuclear reactors, and drill for oil where the caribou roam, so we could have some non – middle – eastern energy before the 30th Century?
NewsReference,
if you want to harness 24 hours of sunlight to generate power for the US, you have to put GIANT solar panel farms at the North Pole. So my question is: why can we do that, but we CAN’T put a couple of oil derricks in ANWR?
“but we CAN’T put a couple of oil derricks in ANWR?
Because ANWR is not a profitable venture without a government subsidy (i.e. costs socialized, profits privatized) nor are the projected reserves large enough to induce much change in oil prices.
PD100, the subsidy required for a North Pole Solar Array would dwarf any subsidy required for ANWR. And while you lament ANWR’s supposed lack of impact on oil prices, those barrels would be barrels we wouldn’t be buying from the Middle East. Besides, the Solar Array would have even LESS impact.
So to sum up: The Solar Array costs more and does less. Sounds like the geniuses behind TARP, Medicare D, the Stimulus, and Goverment Motors have done it again!
a North Pole Solar Array
Wait. What?
We need to put solar panels at the North Pole because why?
it seems President Obama will not emulate President Bush’s hand-holding (literally) with the Saudi royal family.
Well what else would you expect from an administration as culturally tone deaf as this one?
Let me give you a clue Oliver: men holding hands in Saudi Arabia is cultural and part of the social interaction, it’s not the homoerotic Bush fantasy that you want it to be.
Your ignorance is… unsurprising.
Apparently, Obama still hasn’t managed to staff the WH protocol office (or doesn’t bother to take their advice).
“an administration as culturally clueless as this one”
And to forestall the inevitable petulant demands for examples:
Obama’s previous bow to King Abdullah
The Russian “reset” button (or did Obama mean to say “Overcharge”?)
Gordon Brown’s visit to DC (squeezing him in between a visit to the department of transportation and a meeting with Boy Scouts, no Camp David visit, no formal dinner, no press conference, the “gift” of a DVD boxset in the wrong format to a man with failing eyesight)
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s visit to DC (bumps visit for St. Patrick’s day, misspells his name)
“Cinco de Cuatro”
Solar, wind, and wave energy are nearly infinite and other experimental approaches might also be nearly infinite (growing algae into fuel, for instance). Most of these energy sources could be implemented with few, if any, serious drawbacks.
Unfortunately, the White House doesn’t share your enthusiasm about wave energy (although I do):
Apparently, the WH is unaware of this information:
Quaker, according to NewsReference, the best place to put Solar panels is in a place that gets Sunlight 24 hours a day. You’ve got another suggestion?
Right wingers: scientifically ignorant and/or functionally illiterate.
Of course that isn’t what I’m saying, “SaveFarris”.
Though I’ll concede that “SaveFarris” is one of the dumbest right wing trolls here so it’s perfectly possible that they really didn’t understand the clear language of the thread.
Quaker, according to NewsReference, the best place to put Solar panels is in a place that gets Sunlight 24 hours a day. You’ve got another suggestion?
In fact, I live in a reasonably gloomy town in the pac northwest, and solar homeowners are net producers of electricity for at least part of the year.
<iWell what else would you expect from an administration as culturally tone deaf as this one?
I was wondering why Mr. Obama is three times more popular in the rest of the world than Mr. Bush was. Your explanation is as good as any.
“He missed the tag! He missed the tag!”
You’ve got another suggestion?
Yes. Everywhere.
“Obama’s previous bow to King Abdullah”
For a bunch of dead-enders whose central theme is the Tea Party you would excercise some critcal thinking over bowing to royalty. Oh, who am I kidding…
you would excercise some critcal thinking over bowing to royalty
Spelling errors aside, “bowing to royalty” is something that the US president, who is supposed to be an equal, shouldn’t be doing.
Recall this incident during Clinton’s presidency.
Add Obama to the list of presidents who don’t quite know what to do about royalty.
I was wondering why Mr. Obama is three times more popular in the rest of the world than Mr. Bush was. Your explanation is as good as any.
Well then thank God all our dealings and negotiations are with the general populations of the world rather than their leaders, because based on the list I provided above there are at least three of those leaders who likely think less of President Empath than they did before.
“It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image
on the South Lawnat the G-20 meeting in London was indelible: an obsequent President, and theEmperor of JapanKing of Saudi Arabia.”Mr. Obama is three times more popular in the rest of the world than Mr. Bush was
Maybe Obama needs to worry more about what people at home think of him rather than his adoring international fans.
re: “bowing to royalty”
Gentlemen used to bow before ladies.
That was back in the time when gentlemen ruled over women in almost every sphere.
Women didn’t get to vote and in many instances were considered chattel.
But they got bowed to by gentlemen.
And as for that picture of Republican President Bush holding the hand of the Saud king, wasn’t that picture (or one of the pictures of Republican Bush holding the Saud king’s hand) taken in Texas?
Awfully progressive in Texas are they?
Is it common to see men in dresses (or is it a long skirt?) in Texas holding the hand of another man?
For as culturally tone deaf as Republican Bush has always been, isn’t it something that right wing manly men were suddenly okay with Texas Republican Bush holding hands with an anti-democratic dictator who wears dresses?
Yes, there are global and strategic reasons for holding hands with dictators.
There are global and strategic and cultural reasons to briefly bow to show respect as well.
The right wing’s obsession with the trivia of etiquette has always struck me as part of the right wing’s obsession with monarchy in general. It’s part of the right wing’s need to have everything defined in terms of hierarchical social relations.
The same shrill, silly right wing that was complaining about the President bowing to a king was simultaneously screaming and fainting into their fainting couches that the First Lady touched a queen.
While such obsessions over trivia might delight an increasingly extreme right wing, it’s part of what is increasingly alienating moderates and independents.
Obama is holding steady at 59% approval rating despite the Republican Rasmassen outlier poll right wing “Dave in SoCal” cites.
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php
But more interesting is the right wingers following the Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People, by criticizing the American (Democratic) President while he is overseas.
Republicans rules when they are in charge are that criticizing the American (Republicon) President while he is overseas is tantamount to treason.
But Republicons have always believed that they are Monarchy and deserve special privileges that aren’t to be granted to others.
Dave in SoCal:Well what else would you expect from an administration as culturally tone deaf as this one?
ME: I was wondering why Mr. Obama is three times more popular in the rest of the world than Mr. Bush was. Your explanation is as good as any.
Dave in SoCal: Well then thank God all our dealings and negotiations are with the general populations of the world rather than their leaders, because based on the list I provided above there are at least three of those leaders who likely think less of President Empath than they did before.
Although Dave attempted to take my statement out of context, it was a response to his statement that Obama is “culturally tone deaf.” His widespread popularity among the CULTURES, not the leaders of the world, show that he was wrong, and he’s having a hard time dealing with that, so he tried to make it about something else.
Dave, when you are that wrong, apology is good for the soul. Try it. I’ll be gracious.
It’s simple…drill, dig, and split more atoms, but that won’t be allowed. So, we’re stuck with holding hands and bowing to dictators.
Or, you know, develop and improve alternative fuels. BTW, nuclear power isn’t a bad idea, you’re just going to have a hard time <A HREF=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Islandselling it to the American public.
Left winger “News ‘I don’t live in the real world’ Reference” thinks that possible energy sources will provide us with real energy.
As opposed to imaginary energy?
Quaker, according to NewsReference, the best place to put Solar panels is in a place that gets Sunlight 24 hours a day. You’ve got another suggestion?
It’s called the arctic.
Well then thank God all our dealings and negotiations are with the general populations of the world rather than their leaders, because based on the list I provided above there are at least three of those leaders who likely think less of President Empath than they did before.
Because if anyone knows about how world leaders think, it’s a 50 year old virgin from southern California.
I am bowing out of this absurd thread…
Like always, you run away with your tail between your legs. Pitiful.
Could we just open up some nuclear reactors, and drill for oil where the caribou roam, so we could have some non – middle – eastern energy before the 30th Century?
Because using the same fuels we’ve used for over 100 years has “technological future” written all over it. I mean, why even use fuels? People got around just fine with horse power in the 18th century.
The same shrill, silly right wing that was complaining about the President bowing to a king was simultaneously screaming and fainting into their fainting couches that the First Lady touched a queen.
Since I didn’t have the “touch the Queen” incident on my list (for a reason), I must be part of some OTHER right wing.
Obama is holding steady at 59% approval rating despite the Republican Rasmassen outlier poll right wing “Dave in SoCal” cites.
Obama Rated Highest as Person, Lowest on Deficit, Spending/a>
Looks like more and more people are seeing right through Obama’s pitiful excuses about the sucking economy being all Bush’s fault. Or is this an outlier too?
Because if anyone knows about how world leaders think, it’s a 50 year old virgin from southern California.
Well, you got one out 3 right. Let’s see if your reading comprehension skills are sufficient to figure out which one.
“Dave in SoCal”: “Since I didn’t have the “touch the Queen” incident on my list (for a reason), I must be part of some OTHER right wing.”
I’ll try to be more appreciative of your moments of rationality “SoCal”
I’ve appreciated where you’ve broken ranks from the wingnut brigade in the past.
It’s just that you throw me off when you do something like citing a 67% overall favorable opinion of Obama as being a negative.
LOL.
Also, keep in mind that at the other end of the poll, the numbers might not represent what you think they do.
I’m one of those that disapprove of “Obama’s handling of federal spending, and” disapprove of “his handling of the federal budget deficit” but assuredly for the opposite reasons you do.
I’m deeply concerned that the economy is much worse than most of the mainstream thinks, that right wing economic policies for the last 30 years have headed the country into a Deep Depression, and that the only thing that is keeping US out of the economic Depression ditch is the huge Federal spending and it’s unfortunately associated debt.
It’s important to repeatedly note that the debt that the right wing is suddenly expressing concern about is the result of the last 3 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS.
Republican President Reagan more than DOUBLED the US debt, between Republicans Reagan and Bush 1 they more than QUADRUPLED the US debt, and Republican Bush 2 DOUBLED the US debt again.
And all three Republicans increased the size of government and increased federal outlays.
It’s the “Two Santa Clause Theory” of “Republican “Economics”" where Republicans spend Federal dollars AND raise the debt and then blame the other team.
It’s Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
It’s like your Republican Dad ran up your credit card debts and after he skipped out of town your car broke down and your house caught on fire so you needed to borrow even more money just to keep your life from going off the rails (i.e. becoming homeless and not being able to get to your job, assuming you’ve still got one).
And to add insult to injury Republican Deadbeat Dad that ran up all of the debt then blamed you for His debt.
Also, there are a lot of reputable economists that are deeply concerned that the economy is still teetering on the edge of another Great Depression and the only thing keeping US out of it is the ’spender of last resort’: the US Government.
Many of those economists think that the US Government should be spending MORE money and the US Government should be going into MORE debt and will have to do so for at least several more years and if we don’t the teetering economy is going to have another awful collapse.
But your perspective on that would come down to whether you are agreeing with distinguished economist Paul Krugman or you agree with right wing fiction writer Paul Krugman: “Amity Shlaes”.