Even I know that it should be President of the United States, not president of the United States.
And the proper honorific is not "Obama" but President Obama. Jeez, I hated President Bush's insides, but I still called him President. It's called respect for the office.
In Europe, most media (and politicians speaking publicly) use both the name without and with the job title of their heads of governments, state or cabinet ministers. If you want to be formal you use the job title or you might use the academic title, ie, Dr. Merkel to refer to the German chancellor. Otherwise you often just alternate between the Chancellor, Chancellor Merkel, Mrs. Merkel or just Merkel, just to be not repetitive.
Only the royals are basically never addressed by their name only (not least because they have no real last name and using the first name publicly for anybody is very, very rare).
Even I know that it should be President of the United States, not president of the United States.
And the proper honorific is not "Obama" but President Obama. Jeez, I hated President Bush's insides, but I still called him President. It's called respect for the office.
"Acting-President Obama"... or maybe "Acting-President Soetoro"
In Europe, most media (and politicians speaking publicly) use both the name without and with the job title of their heads of governments, state or cabinet ministers. If you want to be formal you use the job title or you might use the academic title, ie, Dr. Merkel to refer to the German chancellor. Otherwise you often just alternate between the Chancellor, Chancellor Merkel, Mrs. Merkel or just Merkel, just to be not repetitive.
Only the royals are basically never addressed by their name only (not least because they have no real last name and using the first name publicly for anybody is very, very rare).
That's just what I was telling Charlie and Camilla in the pub in Windsor a few weeks ago.
Hypocrisy is when right wingers insist that the US is weak for not storming Libya while also insisting that Obama is out of line for acting to stop a mass murder.
But the difference between Bush's Iraq invasion is that it was knowingly based on bad information, aimed primarily at gaining access to the nation's oil, left a destabilized bunch of warlords and terrorists in control, and cost America $4 trillion usd, with no support from the rest of the world.
In Libya, Obama had the UN run the show, acted only to stop mass murder by the Libyan military without illegally invading and assassinating a leader who the right wing of America had long plied with weapons and favors and overlooked as a mass murderer of his people, didn't attempt to seize the nations oil, didn't leave the country in chaotic shambles as priceless historical treasures were destroyed and hundreds of thousands of innocent people ( and thousands of ameican forces) were needlessly killed in a massive clusterfuck of bad planning and incompetence that made the world much more dangerous and inflamed Arab hate for the US as it created the largest US deficit ever.
So no, not really the same thing.
Well, you forgot one thing. UN is just a toy here to make it look legal and the goal is the same: OIL. So called "Libyan opposition" that is assisted by USA & NATO in "dethroning the Gaddafi" are nobody else but former members of Gaddafi government backed up by all radicals seeking to take the power to satisfy their own desires... the same people who actively assisted him in the past to kill those innocent citizens.... so at the end it will just replace one mass killer with another one along with allowing radicals to take part in new government. And unfortunately in this case WEST and AL-Quaeda are surprisingly on the same side. It reminds me of supporting the rebels in Afghanistan against Soviets... the same people then later turned against US and the result was 9/11. Any support for the radicals will sooner or later turn against you.
"The military chief (of the opposition), though, is Abdul Fattah Younis al-Obeidi, a former leader of Col Gaddafi's special forces who was his public security, or interior, minister until he went over to the rebels.
He has described Col Gaddafi as "not completely sane", and worked with the SAS during the now curtailed thaw in British-Libyan relations. But it is still ironic that the West is taking sides in a battle between the leader of a much hated regime and his former effective deputy. "
In Europe, most media (and politicians speaking publicly) use both the name without and with the job title of their heads of governments, state or cabinet ministers. If you want to be formal you use the job title or you might use the academic title, ie, Dr. Merkel to refer to the German chancellor. Otherwise you often just alternate between the Chancellor, Chancellor Merkel, Mrs. Merkel or just Merkel, just to be not repetitive.
Only the royals are basically never addressed by their name only (not least because they have no real last name and using the first name publicly for anybody is very, very rare).
I always liked the way the Germans referred to someone who had multiple degrees:
His point seems valid. Most people use such devices as a distraction and get caught up in absorbing meaningless and often times incorrect information. The devices aren't productive in nature. I spend way too much time on my iPhone, iPad, and Mac. The time is spend watching Netflix, playing games, checking email, reading uninformed rumor sites, and the list goes on. Most of this qualifies as entertainment. The same I suspect is true for most people. Sure, I can find useful information and be productive on the devices as well, but in all honesty I goof off way more because it has become easier to do so.
That isn't to say you can't use such devices for purposes that enrich both your lives and others. People are doing incredible things with such technology, like the medical imaging and music creation tools. On balance though, I guess most people use the devices to waste time on some form of entertainment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
That sounds like Obama alright. Saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite himself. I doubt that he bought the iPad for his own money. Maybe Steve Jobs gave him one for free when they had that little dinner get together recently.
The president says the "distraction" created by technologies like Apple's iPad is hurting America. Is he on point — or just out of touch?
He might but he couldn't even if he wanted to do so. His device has to be blessed by the NSA so that his communications are secure. The government moves slow, so the iPhone hasn't yet received the NSA's stamp of approval. Doesn't necessary mean it is less secure. It just probably doesn't run the security programs the NSA requires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkalu
Mr. President, it is time to do away with the Blackberry and jump ship to iPhone. I bet you like the iPad. Admit it. It is superior technology.
He might but he couldn't even if he wanted to do so. His device has to be blessed by the NSA so that his communications are secure. The government moves slow, so the iPhone hasn't yet received the NSA's stamp of approval. Doesn't necessary mean it is less secure. It just probably doesn't run the security programs the NSA requires.
Hypocrisy is when right wingers insist that the US is weak for not storming Libya while also insisting that Obama is out of line for acting to stop a mass murder.
But the difference between Bush's Iraq invasion is that it was knowingly based on bad information, aimed primarily at gaining access to the nation's oil, left a destabilized bunch of warlords and terrorists in control, and cost America $4 trillion usd, with no support from the rest of the world.
In Libya, Obama had the UN run the show, acted only to stop mass murder by the Libyan military without illegally invading and assassinating a leader who the right wing of America had long plied with weapons and favors and overlooked as a mass murderer of his people, didn't attempt to seize the nations oil, didn't leave the country in chaotic shambles as priceless historical treasures were destroyed and hundreds of thousands of innocent people ( and thousands of ameican forces) were needlessly killed in a massive clusterfuck of bad planning and incompetence that made the world much more dangerous and inflamed Arab hate for the US as it created the largest US deficit ever.
So no, not really the same thing.
Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom were countries that contributed forces to aid the US in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was also a mass murderer.
However, I dont think we need to be the worlds policemen, and I find it rather predictable that the left has all of the sudden gone from anti-war to "Its ok if a Democrat does it".
Any chance we could lock this thread? It's gotten stupid all ready on both sides.
You're all idiots and this is not the forum for discussing politics that don't directly relate to Apple. Take it to an Off-topic forum or another web site, please, you cantankerous, whining dorks!
Comments
As opposed to the left that can seem to rationalize EVERYTHING that BO does, even if it is the EXACT same thing that they derided GWB for.
As was already pointed out, it's not the exact same thing. I know it's tough, but do try to keep up....
Even I know that it should be President of the United States, not president of the United States.
And the proper honorific is not "Obama" but President Obama. Jeez, I hated President Bush's insides, but I still called him President. It's called respect for the office.
In Europe, most media (and politicians speaking publicly) use both the name without and with the job title of their heads of governments, state or cabinet ministers. If you want to be formal you use the job title or you might use the academic title, ie, Dr. Merkel to refer to the German chancellor. Otherwise you often just alternate between the Chancellor, Chancellor Merkel, Mrs. Merkel or just Merkel, just to be not repetitive.
Only the royals are basically never addressed by their name only (not least because they have no real last name and using the first name publicly for anybody is very, very rare).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzyT9-9lUyE
Even I know that it should be President of the United States, not president of the United States.
And the proper honorific is not "Obama" but President Obama. Jeez, I hated President Bush's insides, but I still called him President. It's called respect for the office.
"Acting-President Obama"... or maybe "Acting-President Soetoro"
They can't say it but it's the newest version of the football...
Shhhhhh! Now they have to kill you!
The president of the United States continues to use a RIM BlackBerry,
Right after he took office we heard about how he and Michelle enjoy fisting. You mean he enjoys rimming too?
right after he took office we heard about how he and michelle enjoy fisting. You mean he enjoys rimming too?
lol!!
In Europe, most media (and politicians speaking publicly) use both the name without and with the job title of their heads of governments, state or cabinet ministers. If you want to be formal you use the job title or you might use the academic title, ie, Dr. Merkel to refer to the German chancellor. Otherwise you often just alternate between the Chancellor, Chancellor Merkel, Mrs. Merkel or just Merkel, just to be not repetitive.
Only the royals are basically never addressed by their name only (not least because they have no real last name and using the first name publicly for anybody is very, very rare).
That's just what I was telling Charlie and Camilla in the pub in Windsor a few weeks ago.
To be fair to Obama, he probably wouldn't be allowed to use a regular 3G iPad. His blackberry is a special version that is more secure.
I am sure you are correct.
Hypocrisy is when right wingers insist that the US is weak for not storming Libya while also insisting that Obama is out of line for acting to stop a mass murder.
But the difference between Bush's Iraq invasion is that it was knowingly based on bad information, aimed primarily at gaining access to the nation's oil, left a destabilized bunch of warlords and terrorists in control, and cost America $4 trillion usd, with no support from the rest of the world.
In Libya, Obama had the UN run the show, acted only to stop mass murder by the Libyan military without illegally invading and assassinating a leader who the right wing of America had long plied with weapons and favors and overlooked as a mass murderer of his people, didn't attempt to seize the nations oil, didn't leave the country in chaotic shambles as priceless historical treasures were destroyed and hundreds of thousands of innocent people ( and thousands of ameican forces) were needlessly killed in a massive clusterfuck of bad planning and incompetence that made the world much more dangerous and inflamed Arab hate for the US as it created the largest US deficit ever.
So no, not really the same thing.
Well, you forgot one thing. UN is just a toy here to make it look legal and the goal is the same: OIL. So called "Libyan opposition" that is assisted by USA & NATO in "dethroning the Gaddafi" are nobody else but former members of Gaddafi government backed up by all radicals seeking to take the power to satisfy their own desires... the same people who actively assisted him in the past to kill those innocent citizens.... so at the end it will just replace one mass killer with another one along with allowing radicals to take part in new government. And unfortunately in this case WEST and AL-Quaeda are surprisingly on the same side. It reminds me of supporting the rebels in Afghanistan against Soviets... the same people then later turned against US and the result was 9/11. Any support for the radicals will sooner or later turn against you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...same-side.html
citation from the article
"The military chief (of the opposition), though, is Abdul Fattah Younis al-Obeidi, a former leader of Col Gaddafi's special forces who was his public security, or interior, minister until he went over to the rebels.
He has described Col Gaddafi as "not completely sane", and worked with the SAS during the now curtailed thaw in British-Libyan relations. But it is still ironic that the West is taking sides in a battle between the leader of a much hated regime and his former effective deputy. "
In Europe, most media (and politicians speaking publicly) use both the name without and with the job title of their heads of governments, state or cabinet ministers. If you want to be formal you use the job title or you might use the academic title, ie, Dr. Merkel to refer to the German chancellor. Otherwise you often just alternate between the Chancellor, Chancellor Merkel, Mrs. Merkel or just Merkel, just to be not repetitive.
Only the royals are basically never addressed by their name only (not least because they have no real last name and using the first name publicly for anybody is very, very rare).
I always liked the way the Germans referred to someone who had multiple degrees:
Herr Doktor, Doktor, Doktor Hans Schwartz...
.
That isn't to say you can't use such devices for purposes that enrich both your lives and others. People are doing incredible things with such technology, like the medical imaging and music creation tools. On balance though, I guess most people use the devices to waste time on some form of entertainment.
That sounds like Obama alright. Saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite himself. I doubt that he bought the iPad for his own money. Maybe Steve Jobs gave him one for free when they had that little dinner get together recently.
The president says the "distraction" created by technologies like Apple's iPad is hurting America. Is he on point — or just out of touch?
http://theweek.com/article/index/202...ma-vs-the-ipad
Mr. President, it is time to do away with the Blackberry and jump ship to iPhone. I bet you like the iPad. Admit it. It is superior technology.
He might but he couldn't even if he wanted to do so. His device has to be blessed by the NSA so that his communications are secure. The government moves slow, so the iPhone hasn't yet received the NSA's stamp of approval. Doesn't necessary mean it is less secure. It just probably doesn't run the security programs the NSA requires.
Thanks a lot for clearing this up.
Hypocrisy is when right wingers insist that the US is weak for not storming Libya while also insisting that Obama is out of line for acting to stop a mass murder.
But the difference between Bush's Iraq invasion is that it was knowingly based on bad information, aimed primarily at gaining access to the nation's oil, left a destabilized bunch of warlords and terrorists in control, and cost America $4 trillion usd, with no support from the rest of the world.
In Libya, Obama had the UN run the show, acted only to stop mass murder by the Libyan military without illegally invading and assassinating a leader who the right wing of America had long plied with weapons and favors and overlooked as a mass murderer of his people, didn't attempt to seize the nations oil, didn't leave the country in chaotic shambles as priceless historical treasures were destroyed and hundreds of thousands of innocent people ( and thousands of ameican forces) were needlessly killed in a massive clusterfuck of bad planning and incompetence that made the world much more dangerous and inflamed Arab hate for the US as it created the largest US deficit ever.
So no, not really the same thing.
Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom were countries that contributed forces to aid the US in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was also a mass murderer.
However, I dont think we need to be the worlds policemen, and I find it rather predictable that the left has all of the sudden gone from anti-war to "Its ok if a Democrat does it".
You're all idiots and this is not the forum for discussing politics that don't directly relate to Apple. Take it to an Off-topic forum or another web site, please, you cantankerous, whining dorks!