No Invite For O??..........

[Tim Myers]

I know all the Libbers here on CF will whine that this is a "non-issue" (their new favorite catchphrase), but I personally find it rather interesting.......

Why was O not invited to the Royal Wedding of Prince William and soon-to-be Princess Kate??

Because it is not just a matter of him being invited but being too busy to attend......

He was not invited at all.........

Way back in July of 1981, President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy were invited to the wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana.....

Reagan could not attend because he was still recovering from an assassination attempt by John Hinkley, but Nancy went.

Even farther back, in November 1947, President Harry Truman and his wife Bess were invited to the royal wedding of Elizabeth II and Prince Philip......

So, despite the shrill denials of the Lefties, I would say that this omission by the royal family is far from being a mere "non-issue".....

And I would go even further and state that this is not just a subtle message to O....but it is a loud and public message to the rest of the entire world....

 

[religious&reasonable]

LOL!

I know you don't want to hear this, but this really is a non-issue.

That last sentence was hilarious! It's like something straight off of "The Colbert Report".

 

[Tim Myers]

Now, why doesn't it surprise me that you're a Colbert fan?? **chuckle**

 

[religious&reasonable]

Now, why doesn't it surprise me that you're a Colbert fan?? **chuckle**

Because you know I have a good sense of humor, which is made apparent by the fact that I actually post in threads like these.

All kidding aside, is it really that hard to focus on real issues? How about for one, we talk about how you disagree with Obama's policies or something, instead of this useless junk.

 

[katautumn]

All kidding aside, is it really that hard to focus on real issues? How about for one, we talk about how you disagree with Obama's policies or something, instead of this useless junk.

Because any time someone tries to argue the real issues against the president's policies they're labeled a "racist", "tea bagger", "bigot", "birther" or any other choice derogatory term liberals use instead of offering up counterpoints. It's pretty hard to engage in civil, fruitful political discourse when every time you say you disagree with something you're called a derogatory name.

Disagree with the health care reform? You're not a real Christian, because Jesus would give free health care to everyone or you have no heart.

Disagree with the president's stance on immigration reform? You're a racist.

Disagree with the repeal of DADT? You're a homophobe.

Disagree with the moratorium on off-shore drilling? You hate nature.

Disagree with gun control? You're a gun toting, violent, NRA right-wing nutter.

Disagree with unions or raising corporate taxes? You're greedy and hate the working class.

So, you're left with the petty stuff to laugh at and then someone comes along and accuses you of being a childish moron. I'm guessing at this point there is no such thing as a mature, civilized political discussion.

 

[religious&reasonable]

Because any time someone tries to argue the real issues against the president's policies they're labeled a "racist", "tea bagger", "bigot", "birther" or any other choice derogatory term liberals use instead of offering up counterpoints. It's pretty hard to engage in civil, fruitful political discourse when every time you say you disagree with something you're called a derogatory name.

Disagree with the health care reform? You're not a real Christian, because Jesus would give free health care to everyone or you have no heart.

Disagree with the president's stance on immigration reform? You're a racist.

Disagree with the repeal of DADT? You're a homophobe.

Disagree with the moratorium on off-shore drilling? You hate nature.

Disagree with gun control? You're a gun toting, violent, NRA right-wing nutter.

Disagree with unions or raising corporate taxes? You're greedy and hate the working class.

So, you're left with the petty stuff to laugh at and then someone comes along and accuses you of being a childish moron. I'm guessing at this point there is no such thing as a mature, civilized political discussion.

You make a point, but just adding to the trash heap that is stupid arguements certainly doesn't help.

And I'm sure if people really tried, they could have a civil mature discussion. I've maybe heard about 2 of those arguements you listed above on this site.

I know from experieince that people can have rational discussions, it's just a bit harder to pick them out among the peanut gallery.

But what purpose do threads like these serve? They certainly aren't beneficial to civil discussions, for their irrelevancy and broad assumptions hold no validity. Does it really matter if Obama got invited to the wedding or not? Is it really relevant?

I'd be more than happy to have a factual and civil discussion regarding Obama's policies, if anyone ever made a thread to discuss them, but instead we get threads like these, which lead absolutley nowhere.

 

[WindBreath]

But...how is Obama not being invited to the Royal wedding somehow equal a loud and in your face political undercurrent?

 

[WindBreath]

Because any time someone tries to argue the real issues against the president's policies they're labeled a "racist", "tea bagger", "bigot", "birther" or any other choice derogatory term liberals use instead of offering up counterpoints. It's pretty hard to engage in civil, fruitful political discourse when every time you say you disagree with something you're called a derogatory name.

Disagree with the health care reform? You're not a real Christian, because Jesus would give free health care to everyone or you have no heart.

Disagree with the president's stance on immigration reform? You're a racist.

Disagree with the repeal of DADT? You're a homophobe.

Disagree with the moratorium on off-shore drilling? You hate nature.

Disagree with gun control? You're a gun toting, violent, NRA right-wing nutter.

Disagree with unions or raising corporate taxes? You're greedy and hate the working class.

So, you're left with the petty stuff to laugh at and then someone comes along and accuses you of being a childish moron. I'm guessing at this point there is no such thing as a mature, civilized political discussion.

Well that's just the way the media portrays the Republican party to be. Just like the media portrays the Democratic party to be some kind of crazy leftist nature hugging baby murdering brigade of extremists. Obviously, neither side is correct. On CF, we're normal everyday people. I don't think there are many, if any at all, extremists on this website. I think most people on here are at least open to debate without thinking it will somehow drag them down the path of Satanism.

 

[Cris413]

The Obamas not being invited to the Royal Wedding is a huge indicator of Obama’s dishonorable Foreign Relations. The Royal Family is basically showing the same respect for Obama that he has first shown them…and the UK.

When Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his family visited the WH…As customary, they brought thoughtful and meaningful gifts to honor the President of the (once) United States of America. The Prime Minister gifted Obama with a pen holder hand carved from the timber of the historic 19th century British warship…the HMS President.

Which was very appropriate and exceedingly thoughtful…considering the desk in the Oval Office was hand crafted from the timber from her sister ship, the HMS Resolute, gifted to President Hayes in 1880.

Obama gave the Prime Minister of England…25 DVDs of American movie classics…which aren’t even compatible with British DVD players.

The Browns brought Obama's daughters dresses from a very trendy UK shop with matching necklaces and selections of British literature.

The Obamas gave the Prime Minister’s sons toy models of Marine One, the POTUS’ helicopter…gifts easily obtained at the WH gift shop.

And of course…the biggest insult of all…removing the bust of Churchill from the Oval Office.

And the Obamas were equally disrespectful when they visited Buckingham Palace and gifted the QUEEN with an iPOD. They also gifted Her Royal Majesty with a bag of goodies from the duty free shop at Heathrow Airport. Which included:

A signed paperback copy of Obama's book “Dreams of My Father”. A bottle of Johnny Walker Black Label Scotch. An Abba CD, with the 2 for 1 price sticker still on it. And 10 bags of M&Ms with the Presidential Seal.

The Queen gave the Obamas:

One of the earliest copies of Shakespeare’s “Henry V”. The original sheet music of John Newton’s “Amazing Grace”…framed of course. She gave the girls a dollhouse replica of Windsor Castle with a functioning train station…and Mrs Obama a ruby ring commissioned and worn by Queen Victoria.

I mean seriously…the Obama’s thoughtlessness and treatment of the UK’s dignitaries was totally low rent….with complete lack of decorum, respect and honor befitting Royalty, foreign Heads of State and dignitaries…particularly those of the UK which began forming an allegiance with the US in WWI…almost 100 years ago!

So this is, IMHO, is NOT a non-issue…but yet another fine example of Obama’s horrific Foreign Relations Policy…

…to bow to our enemies…and insult our allies.

 

[WindBreath]

I had no idea it was quite that bad - I don't think that says anything about foreign relations policy, but it does say a lot about his personal decorum and etiquette. I'll agree with you that it was very rude of him.

 

[Cris413]

I had no idea it was quite that bad - I don't think that says anything about foreign relations policy, but it does say a lot about his personal decorum and etiquette. I'll agree with you that it was very rude of him.

Foreign "relations" is a bit different from foreign "polices". Foreign relations is all about honor and respect...keeping good form and diplomatic "relationships" with foreign leaders and such...

...as well as maintaining honor and respect FOR the USA.

Now...Obama's Foreign Policies...well...that's another topic all on it's own.

I'm glad you see the terrible form the POTUS presented...however "rude" doesn't even begin to cover it. He may as well have invited the Queen for a brewsky at the local pub and slapped her on her behind out the door.

It was demeaning.

It's one thing for the US to be reviled as a nation...for our prosperity and military power...

...it's quite another to be disdained as the global joke we've become since Obama took office.


ac: It doesn't surprise me you weren't aware of the details...the American mainstream media either didn't report it, played it down..focusing on the "friendly" phone call as the Prime Minister and his family departed...or wrote OP/ED pieces on how dare the Brits be offended kinda thingy...

 

[dies-l]

I had no idea it was quite that bad - I don't think that says anything about foreign relations policy, but it does say a lot about his personal decorum and etiquette. I'll agree with you that it was very rude of him.

Before you believe anything you read in an email, on Facebook, or on here, you should check snopes first: snopes.com: Royal Snub for the Obamas

It turns out that this really is a non-issue and is qualitatively distinguishable from the Charles-Diana wedding. It also turns out that Obama's gifts to Queen Elizabeth were not nearly as tacky as some would like you to believe.

As to the first point, the Charles-Diana wedding was an official state event; involving the direct heir to the throne. Prince William, not being the direct heir, is not bound by the same diplomatic formalities as was his father.

Also, it turns out that, in context, the Obamas' gifts to the queen were rather thoughtful and well appreciated by the royal family.

I have not problem with people who disagree with our President and his policies. But, let's at least try to be honest in our criticisms.

 

[Tim Myers]

The lengths some people will go to.......

**chuckle chuckle**

 

[dies-l]

The lengths some people will go to.......

**chuckle chuckle**

Tell me about it! I mean someone has the nerve to tell you why your analysis is wrong and you respond with a comment about "the lengths some people will go to" rather than addressing the criticisms.

 

[Cris413]

Before you believe anything you read in an email, on Facebook, or on here, you should check snopes first: snopes.com: Royal Snub for the Obamas

It turns out that this really is a non-issue and is qualitatively distinguishable from the Charles-Diana wedding. It also turns out that Obama's gifts to Queen Elizabeth were not nearly as tacky as some would like you to believe.

As to the first point, the Charles-Diana wedding was an official state event; involving the direct heir to the throne. Prince William, not being the direct heir, is not bound by the same diplomatic formalities as was his father.

Also, it turns out that, in context, the Obamas' gifts to the queen were rather thoughtful and well appreciated by the royal family.

I have not problem with people who disagree with our President and his policies. But, let's at least try to be honest in our criticisms.

snopes ...someone should "snope" snopes...

Millions of Americans, including national leaders, who rely on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction, may be surprised to learn that behind the Wizard's curtain, is just a husband and wife doing research on their own.

In fact, Snopes, routinely cited by many as the final word on both frivolous and important stories, is not the well-staffed think tank of researchers, journalists and computer hacks one might expect – but rather, the work of David and Barbara Mikkelson, living in a Los Angeles suburb.


Read more: Is Snopes.com infallible?



And I think the UK media outlets might disagree this is a non-issue...it's easy enough to research these things on one's own...just like I did...from various sources...and just like Mr and Mrs Mikkelson do...

 

[Tim Myers]

"I mean someone has the nerve to tell you why your analysis is wrong and you respond with a comment about "the lengths some people will go to" rather than addressing the criticisms."

Just like a Democrat to not know the difference between "analysis" and someone's personal opinion.......
And, as far as "criticism" goes, that is the only knee-jerk response you Dems know how to do when anyone says the slightest negative thing about your "deliverer"......

 

[religious&reasonable]

"I mean someone has the nerve to tell you why your analysis is wrong and you respond with a comment about "the lengths some people will go to" rather than addressing the criticisms."

Just like a Democrat to not know the difference between "analysis" and someone's personal opinion.......
And, as far as "criticism" goes, that is the only knee-jerk response you Dems know how to do when anyone says the slightest negative thing about your "deliverer"......

Something tells me I'm being trolled right now...

But you realize you haven't actually made a rational or relevant response validating your claims right?

I am so being trolled. I can feel it. Your smarter than this.

 

[dies-l]

"I mean someone has the nerve to tell you why your analysis is wrong and you respond with a comment about "the lengths some people will go to" rather than addressing the criticisms."

Just like a Democrat to not know the difference between "analysis" and someone's personal opinion.......
And, as far as "criticism" goes, that is the only knee-jerk response you Dems know how to do when anyone says the slightest negative thing about your "deliverer"......

This is amusing.

Seriously, do you have anything to add to the conversation, other than to insult me for having the nerve to disagree with you?

 

[dies-l]

snopes ...someone should "snope" snopes...

Millions of Americans, including national leaders, who rely on the popular online hoax-buster Snopes.com as the ultimate authority in separating truth from fiction, may be surprised to learn that behind the Wizard's curtain, is just a husband and wife doing research on their own.

In fact, Snopes, routinely cited by many as the final word on both frivolous and important stories, is not the well-staffed think tank of researchers, journalists and computer hacks one might expect – but rather, the work of David and Barbara Mikkelson, living in a Los Angeles suburb.


Read more: Is Snopes.com infallible?

I know that snopes is not infallible, but it is certainly more accurate than World Net Daily. Interestingly, the snopes article actually cites its sources (unlike both your prior post and the WND article) and the content of the snopes article is in accord with several other sources.

And I think the UK media outlets might disagree this is a non-issue...it's easy enough to research these things on one's own...just like I did...from various sources...and just like Mr and Mrs Mikkelson do...

What sources did you consult in your research? Without citing sources, you are just another person on the internet putting forth your opinions as though they are facts.

 

[pgp_protector]

What wedding?