The State of the Union is not an international meeting during which the intricacies of protocol and the meaning of interactions between foreign leaders are scrutinized.
Shaking hands and hugging is commonly seen and expected at the State of the Union. However, coming up behind a female foreign dignitary and massaging her shoulders would still appear odd even in that setting.
Not all events are equal, and the same expectations do not prevail across settings.
How then, do you explain her apparent revulsion to Bush’s touch?
It was on vacation, and only half a naked ass 
Because the last time he tried to cop a cheap feel, so she was on edge?
Wait, Flying Dutchman is serious?
You’re not serious, are you?
Yeah, it’s not as if anyone took the Lieberman Kiss seriously. 
I can see Lieberman being considered a foreign leader, of a sort. 
That’s because, for a woman, it’s a compliment.
Or should be, anyway.
Half assed ?
Obviously you’ve had very little experience with women. Merkel’s initial reaction was quite normal given that it was unexpected and she wasn’t aware of who was giving her the squeeze. Bush came up behind her. Once she was aware she gave a big smile. No revulsion there.
Dead serious ! I’m no Scylla.
Argument by false attribution. That’s not a good faith reproduction of what I said. And, you accuse me of being dishonest?
Yet another falsehood. I didn’t bemoan the lack of civility. I was thrice accused of doing nothing but casting insults, and merely pointed out that I had fewer insults than those making the accusation.
“Theory” is a somewhat charitable descriptor. Your “theory” is that Bush doesn’t care anymore, made as simply a bald assertion. Since you would have to read his mind to know this I wonder where your superpowers are. I don’t need any substantive evidence to contradict your theory. A simple assertion isn’t a theory. I don’t have to prove it false. You have to prove it true.
Coward? What am I afraid of? What special knowledge is conferred by posessing a Vagina that I’m afraid of?
Nobody gives straight line like you. Nobody.
Given that she looked at him as he approached, it’s hard to believe she did not know who he was. Only slightly less involved in a death struggle with reality and video tape is your suggestion that she gave a big smile.
[QUOTE=Excalibre]
Perhaps you actually view calling those who disagree with you (or, in this case, with Bush) “offenderati” as valid debate.
[/quote-
No. People who offend easily or seek reasons to take offense are “offenderati.” People who disagree with me are simply “wrong,” and people who disagree with Bush may be right or wrong depending on my stance.
Yet here you are.
Strange how you seem to ignore the fact that twice you have accused me of being good for nothing but lobbing insults when in fact you have made more insults than I have.
Better report it then. Unless of course that wasn’t an “honest” accusation.
Sure. It’s rhetoric. A tactic.
Well, if we want to be logical (I’m guessing you probably don’t and I’m wasting my time) we can say this.
The video clip is a sample of Bush’s behavior. If we wish to analyze this we need to decide whether this behavior is representative. To do this we need a representative and random sample. This sample of behavior that we are analyzing is selected. If you are selecting samples than you invalidate your conclusions. Your sample needs to be blind.
Let’s say for example that we have a bag of marbles. Some are white and some are black. The marble factor makes nine white marbles for each black marble. We don’t know this, but we would like to determine the distribution of white versus black marbles in the bag.
Let’s say each bag contains 50 marbles. A person reaches into the bag, selects a black marble and shows it to us. Then he reaches in and selects another black marble and again shows it to us.
Based on this, you would conclude that the bag is full of black marbles.
I, on the other hand would say that 2 marbles is not a large sample and since the person is actively selecting the marbles we know nothing about the makeup of marbles in the bag other than there are two black ones.
The analogy should be obvious. A black marble represents a faux pas. If you actively search out faux pas’ you will likely find them. By actively searching them out or selecting for them you are not taking a representative sample and therefore cannot generalize based on that sample.
To logically make the assertion that Bush has a predilection for making faux pas’ beyond what is normal, you will need to select a sufficiently large sample of random interactions with foreign dignitaries and compare that sample against other Presidents/peers. Than you can make a statement concerning this supposed predilection, and have it taken seriously.
That would be “logical.”
What you are doing is just whacking off with a bunch of pals. A circle jerk. Here you sit in a thread titled “Bush, you’re not at a frat party, you dick” where the likes of Hentor call anybody who may oppose his opinion a “Cocksucker,” and you all nod sagely and compliment each other as you salivate over a piece of video showing a minor social gaffe from which you draw broad conclusions.
I show up and point this out, and you blame me for the lack of substantive debate?
Not only would you have to make it, you’d have to recognize you made it. Your claim that you never have suggests that your powers of self-analysis might be lacking. On the other hand, maybe you just don’t get out much.
No. I’ve grown to find “Cocksucker” an ugly epithet, and feel free to say so, and don’t really think you have any special moral athority.
It’s a gift.
“Lord, my boat is so small and Thy sea is so vast.”
I don’t think there’s much high-ground in this swamp, but thank you.
There may be something to what you say here. I would have to say though that the Germans getting massively offended over the symbolic implications of a minor faux pas in a friendly interpersonal interraction is kind of disproportionate.
On the other hand, we are talking about Germans, so you might be right.
Hmmm. In my experience what you say is untrue. I don’t think that there is a particular predilection or expertise among the Republicans in collecting faux pas, nor do I think there is one among Democrats. Typically, in my experience, if one is made it get’s used against you regardless of your party affiliation.
I agree with you concerning the internet statement/misquote of Al Gore. I disagree with your Kerry example. I think Kerry’s Iraq stance is a major policy issue for the voters and the fact that it tended to change quite a bit and contradict itself was a valid criticism.
Bill Clinton made few social gaffes or faux pas’. He’s quite gifted socially and has exemplary verbal skills.
A noble idea. I’m not exactly the party chairman though. It’s a good sentiment though, so I promise to try harder.
Personally I’d rather have Lieberman.
I like to keep in mind this: You can’t save everybody, so just make sure that you have a long stick to knock the stragglers back into the water.
Actually, the etymology of “That’s so gay” as a hompophobic insult may be of questionable provenance. If you hang out with old people, really old people, they use “gay” differently “We were so happy and gay,” or even a Fred Flintstone “We’ll have a gay old time!” It seems to me that “that’s so gay” or “don’t be gay” kind of had it’s origin in that sense before it became a synonym for homosexuality. It was like “That’s silly,” or “don’t be silly.”
I remember way back in the 70s talking about how Kiss was “so gay,” meaning silly or stupid. I knew what homosexuality was, and at that time there wasn’t much of a connection to the term or at least not an overwhelming one.
Back in the fifties though, apparently “sissy” meant gay, and was the same as calling someone a “faggot.” Later it seemed the usage changed and nowadays you can call somebody a “sissy” without homophobic overtones.
So maybe “that’s gay,” isn’t the best example.
I have to agree with you here.
You don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
As Lenny Bruce says “You call a woman a “cocksucker.” That’s one nice lady.”