Why Does Obama Bow?

| June 22, 2012 | 132 Comments

This is a topic rife with psychological and political implications, most of which will not be welcomed in the liberal world of Obama supporters. This supposedly most confident man we elected to lead our country to greatness back in 2008 seems to have some inherent tendency to show deference to foreign leaders of countries of far lesser global importance and strength than our own.

Why is this, the average American might ask?

My immediate assessment is that this is simply a manifestation of the huge fraud perpetrated against the American people in 2008 when we elected an inexperienced, first-term senator, whose major life accomplishment had been as a former community organizer, to be the president of the United States. He didn’t deserve the position nor the honor. Nor did he deserve the phony Nobel Prize for Peace bestowed for nothing more than being Europe’s loudest, leading, liberal barking dog. He well knew he didn’t deserve the office or the honor and now, in moments of meeting more intelligent, more accomplished and more deserving politicians in the world, men and women of actual accomplishment in their own countries, he simply can’t restrain himself from displaying his own acknowledgement of the fact that he is undeserving of being where he is. Call it Affirmative Action Induced Inferiority Syndrome, or AAIIS.
We did not become the most wealthy, the most powerful, the most influential nation in the world by accident, as it appears this affirmative action president appears to believe. That achievement came through hard work and sacrifice and a willingness to show the world through our always determined and, yes, even sometimes belligerent, posture that we, the people of America, believe that we have found the path to freedom and prosperity for humanity through our capitalistic economy and our republican form of government. A president who had come up the hard way, without the preferential treatment Obama received because he was half-black, might better understand the truth of that. He might have a better sense of why his country leads the world in prosperity for our citizens and realize the fact that most Americans would love to lead all the other citizens of the world to the same levels of freedom and prosperity.

But this guy, supposedly the most powerful man in the world, bows down? I’m of two minds here, the first being that he’s suffering from AAIIS and is simply insecure and unsure of himself. That would seem to be borne out by his wimpy acquiescence to the horrid disrespect shown him by the Russians on repeated occasions. The other, more sinister, view I must consider is that he intentionally seeks to debase our nation in the theater of world politics for purposes of advancing his socialist agenda. Remember the basic tenet of socialism: it is a leveling of all things, including nations.

What more graphic demonstration of the leveling of geopolitical power could there be than the leader of the world’s most powerful nation-state bowing to third world tyrants?

Crossposted at American Thinker

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (132)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. insipid says:

    The fact that you believe that he can’t win, without evidence says more about you than it does about President Obama.

  2. insipid says:

    No, it took me five minutes. Just someone else put the thread to the top. I just read your pathetic justification five minutes ago.

  3. CI says:

    The “make believe” President?

    Different planes of reality?

  4. UPNorth says:

    “In fact the only one who has presented evidence that MIGHT be used in a court was me. My, aren’t we proud of our delusional self?
    Farther upthread, there was this little nugget of wisdom an advocacy for quotas, “There’s been 44 Presidents and ONE has been black”. The implication is that there should have been at least, what, six? Eight? Ten?

  5. Hondo says:

    Interesting. I thought the “N-word” was such a racist term that it was unconditionally verboten, insipid. Since you just “went there” above, does that mean it’s back in vogue? Can the rest of us now use that word without fear pf being called “racist”? Or does your use mean you’re actually a closet racist?

    Think about what you just did, fool. By example, you just gave your personal endorsement to the use of foul racist slurs in discourse here. Is that really where you want to go?

    Oh, and the example you gave is also bogus as hell. No one here – well, except for maybe our current resident ignorant assclown, Wittgenfeld – objects to the current POTUS on account of his race. The objections are due to the fact that he often acts like a socialist idiot.

  6. DR_BRETT says:

    No. 105:
    No. It’s from COL GEORGE “BUD” DAY, Medal Of Honor, Vietnam War —
    COL DAY gets the credit; I use HIS characterization .

  7. DR_BRETT says:

    To Whom It May Concern (or Interest):
    “George Everett “Bud” Day (born February 24, 1925) is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the Vietnam War. He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S. Service member since GEN DOUGLAS MacARTHUR, having received some seventy decorations, a majority for actions in combat. Day is a recipient of the Medal of Honor.”

    If you request it, I will attempt to find computer addresses and substantiations for all the quotations, but for now, here are, some quotations:
    “Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared to the world that we ( U.S.) are a bunch of torturers.. Thus it will be OK to torture us next time when they catch us….because that is what the U.S. does. Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that pouring a little water on some one’s face, or hanging a pair of womens pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. He is a meathead.
    Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing our great country are a disgrace to the United States. Please pass this info on to Sean Hannity. He is free to use it to point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding …which has no after effect… Is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC … Hurrah for the guy who poured the water.
    BUD DAY, MOH”

    “I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness who was also in my SQ in jail … As was John McCain … And we agree that McCain DOES NOT SPEAK FOR the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture .. Or that “water boarding” is torture.”
    – (COL DAY)

  8. insipid says:

    Using the “N” word as an example of racism is not the same as using it as a pejorative, just as using affirmative action as a pejorative is different then describing it or implimenting it. Would you advocate changing the word to Slave in Huck finn? I believe that the term “affirmative action President is every bit as offensive as the phrase i used. And the reason why i used it was not to “ok” the use of the term but to show the visceral shock that i felt when i read it. Affirmative Action President is every bit as offensive as “no account nigger”. It’s meant for the same effect and to evoke the same imagery: that he’s a lazy good-for-nothing that got everything handed to him on account of his color.

    And you’re fooling yourself if you think that the exhibited on this thread is isolated to one man. The blog itself is not a dog whistle, it’s a siren. John Lilyea just described the election of 2008 as an “affimative action program”.

    Another dismissed ALL the reasons that Colin Powell made for supporting Barack Obama here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs43RR7IiNU

    And decided that it’s just because he’s black.

    Plus there’s the outright defense of a pejorative that would certainly get you fired if directed at a black man in almost any office in the country.

  9. insipid says:

    @106 The implication is that if you’re going to make the argument that it’s an advantage to be black in National Politics you ought to be able to point to more than ONE successful candidacy in the 143 years between the ending of slavery in 1865 and the election of President Obama in 2008. Furthermore if you’re going to make their should be more than 10 Black people elected to state-wide offices in those 143 years.

    Generously including the VP as a national Ticket there’s been about 56 Possibilities to pick a black person as either a President of VP in 143 years and so far it has happened only once.

    Furthermore in that same 143 years counting governorships and Senate seats there has been probably thousands of oportunities to elect a black person to state-wide offices and that feat has probably been accomplished less than two dozen times since reconstruction (not counting the period where the North forced in black legislatures in Southern States).

    Even if you want to argue that somehow in all that time blacks werent’ qualified or they didn’t want to run or whatever it is hard to look at any REAL facts or election wins or any kind of data other than “i know some folks” to show that being black is an advantage in running for national and state-wide offices. Barack Obama won because he was an exceptional candidate. He won despite being black, not because of it.

  10. Hondo says:

    insipid: even a fool like yourself should be able to figure out that Huckleberry Finn was written some 125 years ago. Acceptable language then was far different than it is today. But I digress and belabor the obvious. Well, it’s obvious to the rest of us, anyway.

    What I was doing was merely pointing out your hypocrisy in using a pejorative term for effect, while standing ready to crucify anyone else here who did the same. Obviously you missed that fact.

    And don’t even attempt to deny that’s the case. You’ve already done exactly what I noted above. You did so by castigating the author of this article – who was not Lilyea, by the way – for using the term “affirmative action” in what you consider to be a “racist” manner. Yet you yourself use a blatantly racist and pejorative term and now claim it was done “for effect”. Ever stop to think that maybe that’s exactly why the article’s author used the term “affirmative action president” – e.g., for effect, in order to make people stop and think about the issue? Much like Lennie Bruce and George Carlin used foul language, or Richard Pryor used the N-word, in their comedy in the 1960s and 1970s?

    Go ahead and hypocritically impute your own subconscious racial issues to us while maintaining your “innocence”, insipid. It’s fascinating observing your repressed demons on parade.

  11. ROS says:

    You seem to forget, idiot, we disagree with his white half, too.

    You’ve seriously outdone your regular level of absolute ignorance with your above comment. I can think of only one commenter who’s disgusted me more with their comments, and that takes a lot.

    I also honestly hope that the things you’ve stated here are merely said in an effort to be an effective troll and that you truly don’t say these things in real life. If that isn’t the case, I’m buying beers for the first person to jack you in your dirty little mouth.

  12. Poetrooper says:

    Let’s see what we get when we spell out insipid:

    I’m

    Not

    Subtle

    In

    Publicizing

    I’m

    Dipshit

  13. insipid says:

    I’m sick and tired of the false equivelency. Someone pointing out racism is not the same as someone being a racist. The term “Affirmative Action President” is a dog whistle that means precisely the same thing as the term I used. He meant it for the same effect. He wasn’t trying to use the term to make people think about the issue- that’s actually what I was doing. He was using the term to bellitle and to minimize his accomplishment. As a means of saying to anyone and everyone that will read his trashy columns that it does not matter how far a black man advances- even to the Presidency of the United States- he will ALWAYS be dismissed by some racists like John Lilyea and the author of this piece as an “Affirmative Action” President. The phrase is dog-whistle for “No account n***er” and you can take those pearls that you’re cluthching right now and shove them up your ass.

    The truth is that the author of this piece uses blatantly racist language and imagery and you’re too cowardly to go after one of your own for doing so. Instead, you’re assaulting the messenger for not being genteel in pointing out his obvious racism. Well, sorry to be uncouth. But the use of the term, and the pathetic appologies of the term makes me pretty pissed. My characterization of the term is an extremely accurate determination of what he meant when he used it. If my re-phrasing shocked you then hopefully that will give you an inkling of how i felt when i first read the term “Affirmative Action President”.

  14. Redacted1775 says:

    Your boy is a fraud and a failure, deal with it.

  15. insipid says:

    @113 Oh get off your damn feinting couch, Ros. You and i both know full well what he meant when he wrote “affirmative action President”. He wasn’t going after his policies, he was saying that his position is an un-earned gift based upon Barack Obama’s skin color. It’s not my harshly-worded charecterization of his position that is shocking, it is his position.

    While he can’t use the term i used, it’s certainly the term he’d like to use. At least he’d be honest. His black wife and mullato children would be so proud of him.

  16. ROS says:

    You can go fuck yourself. Don’t tell me what I do and don’t know when I very clearly stated the contrary. Your own feigned shock at a person’s use of the term “affirmative action” and your subsequent attempts to characterize him as a bigot have been repeatedly disproven so you’ve used the only term available for its shock value.

    Guess what, you worthless fuck, the obly racist here is you, and you’ve proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. I’ve no use for ignorant bigots such as yourself and , frankly, I don’t believe there’s any place in this world for your ilk. You may now go congratulate yourself on surviving with such a severe lack of oxygen. Or don’t, I really don’t care.

  17. insipid says:

    THIS of course did not offend Ros or Hondo because the horrible N-word was not uttered:

    ============================================================
    Here’s another way of looking at it.

    Although it isn’t politically correct to recognize this fact, because it offends ditzy, bleeding-heart liberals, sensible people might say that “racism”, per se, is inherently natural and ingrained in all of us. It goes to the issue of survival of the fittest, which has been going on ever since cro magnon man attained supremacy over the Neanderthals, who subsequently went extinct, because they could not adapt. Because of the screwy ideas of liberals, such people are no longer allowed to become extinct through natural processes. They become a protected species and wards of the state, for reasons too controvercial to mention here.

    Just a thought.
    =============================================================

    That “thought” is not unique. It’s Hitlers Eugenics argument (including his disdain for liberals). It’s EXACTLY what Hitler was arguing. That there are some inherently “inferior” humans and that it is time bleeding heart liberals stop coddling them. Here’s Hitler if you don’t believe me:

    At one time the Spartans were capable of such a wise measure, but not our present, mendaciously sentimental, bourgeois patriotic nonsense. The rule of six thousand Spartans over three hundred and fifty thousand Helots was only thinkable in consequence of the high racial value of the Spartans. But this was the result of a systematic race preservation; thus Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of sick, weak, deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

    But I’m sure Ros will be quick to defend Brian’s audaciously “politically incorrect” statement and Hondo will very quickly demonstrate how i am the “real” racist.

  18. UpNorth says:

    Nope, insipid, you can trot out any BS you want, but, what you’re crying about is numbers. There’s only been one black President, boo-hoo.
    But, again, reading your rant in #111, it’s quite obvious that you have no computer issues, you just can’t construct coherent thoughts or string words together in coherent sentences.
    So, run along, the fries are ready.

  19. insipid says:

    The only think you’ve “demonstrated” Ros is your quick defense of the indefensible. Your attempts to turn being black into an ADVANTAGE in national politics is laughable. And if you had any class or intelectual honesty you’d admit that the argument is dumb. There has not been ONE decent defense of the statement, not one. You’re all resorting to “i heard some guy said” or i know a guy” or “No, YOU’RE the racist!” but you really can’t make a coherent argument. But you KNOW in your heart that he is an “affirmative action President” because you know deep down there is no way a black man can beat you in a fair fight. That’s why you cling so desperately to that notion. There had to be some other explanation. Well, i’m sorry the explanation is that he beat your guy, fair and square and “affirmative action” had nothing to do with. Your defense of the temr is laughable as well as pathetic.

  20. Just Plain Jason says:

    Hey insipid did you see the post about the guys getting their citizenship in Kandahar? I love seeing my brothers and sisters becoming Americans. Also, who do you have in the Ballduster McSoulpatch Memorial Stolen Valor tournament? I think Dallas could take it this year…

  21. insipid says:

    And you can’t come up with an original joke, upnorth. Now why don’t you go chug another six pack. You might have a few brain-cells left.

    The argument was that it is an advantage to be black and be in elected office. The fact that there has only been one black president and hardly any elected to state-wide black offices proves that argument is full of shit. The fact that you can’t undestand that fairly simple concept proves that you’re quite a dumb-fuck.

  22. UpNorth says:

    And, you’re still the failed fry cook from Mickie D’s, who tries to keep up with the adults in the room, and fails spectacularly. But, like the little spoiled child you are, you throw yourself on the floor and kick and scream because no one will agree with you.
    And, speaking of racism, wasn’t it you who assumed in a thread, when I referred to Escalades and Expeditions, that I was referring to blacks? Why, yes it was, you racist. Go ahead now, tell us how you worked in the inner city and some of your best friends are black.
    Weren’t we told that blacks voted for Barack and that was OK, because they were voting for someone “who looked like them”? Maybe that’s why blacks have a tough time winning state wide office? It’s OK for blacks to vote for a black, but for whites to vote for whites is racist. You don’t even know how stupid your posts are.

  23. Yat Yas 1833 says:

    Instupid, my college advisor told me a little story that details you perfectly.

    A person with an A.A. can take a 100 page report, do an analysis of it and reduce it to a 20 summary eliminating all the extraneous information.
    A person with a B.A. can can take that 20 page sumary and do an analysis of the summary and reduce it to a 10 page summary eliminating all the extraneous information.
    A person with a Masters can can take that 10 page sumary and do an analysis of the summary and reduce it to a five page summary eliminating all the extraneous information.
    A person with a PhD can can take that 5 page sumary and do an analysis of the summary and reduce it to a one page summary eliminating all the extraneous information.

    YOU are the extraneous information. The only reason some of our member’s posts run so long is answering all your inane points. Don’t you realize you have NO credibility here and we read you posts just to laugh at you?

    Sad, very, very sad.

  24. Hondo says:

    Shakespeare, insipid: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Those who complain continuously about a particular type of misconduct often do so because they see in others their own suppressed guilt. And your history here shows – clearly – a tendency to label those who disagree with you racist, and to assume racist intent where none likely exists. In your world, only those who disagree with you are racist. None who agree with you are.

    In short: your view of the world is distorted by the lens of your own inner demons; you impute your own prejudices to others. And you don’t even realize it. Sad.

    It’s true that a few fools have posted racist or misogynistic idiocy and/or language here at TAH hin the past. That falls in the “true but irrelevant” category. Jonn runs a generally open forum; his house, his rules. In an open forum, such idiocy is thus inevitable from time to time. Those who post content egregiously out of line often end up getting their subsequent comments moderated – or deleted outright. Otherwise, Jonn lets people say what they want within pretty broad limits. Again: his house, his rules.

    Don’t like that? Fine. It’s a free country, and no one is forcing you to come here and interact with the rest of us. But how about you refrain from making unfounded accusations of “racism” based on your own inaccurate and hypocritical perceptions of the world while you’re here. Just because you see a “racist behind every tree” doesn’t mean they’re really there.

    Oh, and you just engaged in reductio ad Hitlerum in comment 119 above – again. That’s getting to be fairly predictable behavior on your part.

  25. CI says:

    @121 – Thanks for the attribution, though it doesn’t lend any rational definition to the label used.

    It’s sort of sad to see a man of great deeds stoop to such lazy rhetoric.

  26. DR_BRETT says:

    There’s nothing lazy about it — you must catch the implication, in the context of the complete statement, which you now have — I won’t SPELL IT OUT, that’s your job; figure it out for yourself .

  27. CI says:

    You are correct….you don’t have to spell it out….it’s quite plain to see.

  28. DR_BRETT says:

    No. 123 Just Plain Jason:
    Nice job with your comment to Mr. “i.”

  29. NHSparky says:

    he was saying that his position is an un-earned gift based upon Barack Obama’s skin color.

    I’ll say it–considering that any white presidential candidate in recent memory who ran on the same issues and rhetoric was polling in the asterisk range, and dropped out before the South Carolina primary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *