I salute them.

On June 16th, 2009 at 6:24 pm, emjem24 said: #144

So, to sum up… believe when humans apologize just as long as it’s in the classical form but not if it’s a foreign policy speech with “apologetic” tones. Got it. Let’s make excuses for the powerful because they use “apologetic” tones to butter up people and get what they want. Got it.

Apologists tones are not an apology. I am gaining confidence that you appreciate that fact. Yes, you have to say the words to avoid any ambiguity like Letterman did.

Let’s take everything at face value and be everybody’s fool. Let’s have faith in others when they’ve proven, in the past, that that faith was misplaced. I see.

Nope. After the words are spoken, as I said, you can either believe and accept the apology, or you can dismiss it.

If an apology includes “apology” or “sorry” it’s an apology. If you’re kissing the world’s a$$, using appeasing and conciliatory language to get what you want at the expense of those in the military and the country, and it doesn’t serve the country’s interests, then that’s not apologetic. I see. If you constantly mention what the previous administration did wrong and then verbally decry it and say how you’ll do better that’s not an apology either? Okay… your characterization of foreign policy is different than mine.

No. I am not discussing foreign policy. I am discussing the words used. If you decry what a previous administration did, you are decrying it, not apologizing for it. Decrying is not apologizing. You are free to infer what you want, but without the traditionally accepted words, it is not an apology. Letterman used those words. Accept, or reject, the apology, but without the specific words there is no apology.

May I ask: did you vote for Obummer? You seem to jump to his defense a lot.

No. And, I am not defending Pres Obama. Where did I ever say he right? You are inferring, speculating and assigning motive. I have never jumped to hid defense. I have asked questions.

My asking what is the difference between calling what Pres Obama said overseas an apology tour, without using the words, and calling what Letterman said as an apology, is suspect, and I want to know what the consistentcy is.

Actually saying ‘I am sorry’ and ‘I apologize’ as Letteman did is devalued as an apology. And, absent those very specific words, Pres Obama is called an apologist. I just don’t get it. Do your best to explain it to me. What you have done so far escapes me.

Your utter faith in humanity is misplaced. Apologies can be used as fake ways to appease people and get them to stop annoying you or troubling you. That has been my experience (when the apology has been insincere). Letterman has a habit of attacking those he politically opposes. His intentions are suspect.

At the risk of repeating myself, there was an apology and you can either accept, or reject it. The words were used in one case, and not the other. What makes an apology an apology are the words used. If the words are not used, it is not an apology.

Appeasement is not an apology. It is appeasement. As you said earlier, it is pacifying someone. And, pacifying is not an apology. Pacifying is pacifying, and apologizing is apologizing.

I don’t use my “feelings” to gauge what is an actual apology but the pattern of behavior behind it. That’s the conservative in me: I judge people’s actions. I also look a little bit more closely into what they say. That’s the writer in me. Maybe I just see words and how they’re applied a lot differently than you.

OK, see the words and how they are used, but don’t address words that are not used. Pres Obama did not use ‘apologize’ or ‘I am sorry’. Letterman did. It is entirely too easy to take someone to task for what they did not say. I prefer to focus on exactly what they did say, and comment on that. Fine, read deeply into what you think someone said, but don’t avoid what was actually said.

Obummer has a habit of attacking those he politically opposes: be it the Bush administration, health insurance companies, financial companies, and even Republicans that disagree with him. When you publicly pledge to reverse a previous administration’s policies, attack that administration, and then use that administration’s “failings” to make yourself seem like you’re in the audience’s corner then how can that not be seen as apologetic?

Because it is attacking, your words, not mine. Attacking is attacking, and apologizing is apologizing. Pres Obama is doing what politicians do. He is a politician after all.

You can take how people apologize at face value but many others like myself know better. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Face it- Obummer doesn’t give much specifics for many of his “plans” and all many of us have is “speculation.”

His specifics are certainly at issue, though what has that got to do with his not apologizing? Letterman apologizing? And, why hasn’t any one, including you, presented a reasonable arguement explaining that dichotomy?

People don’t mean what they say anymore, be it one’s own family/friends, politicians, or even a second-rate commedian. You keep your open mind while cynics like myself see what many people like Letterman and Obummer are truly are: those who don’t mean anything when they say it or stick to it when it’s no longer socially or politically convenient.

I mean what I say, and I accept that you mean what you say. I hope we aren’t the only two.

I suppose we will have to wait and see if Letterman sticks to his apology. And, that is not make sexual jokes about Gov Palin’s children.

Zyzzyg said: #126

So, to sum up… believe when humans apologize just as long as it’s in the classical form but not if it’s a foreign policy speech with “apologetic” tones. Got it. Let’s make excuses for the powerful because they use “apologetic” tones to butter up people and get what they want. Got it.

Let’s take everything at face value and be everybody’s fool. Let’s have faith in others when they’ve proven, in the past, that that faith was misplaced. I see.

If an apology includes “apology” or “sorry” it’s an apology. If you’re kissing the world’s a$$, using appeasing and conciliatory language to get what you want at the expense of those in the military and the country, and it doesn’t serve the country’s interests, then that’s not apologetic. I see. If you constantly mention what the previous administration did wrong and then verbally decry it and say how you’ll do better that’s not an apology either? Okay… your characterization of foreign policy is different than mine.

May I ask: did you vote for Obummer? You seem to jump to his defense a lot.

Your utter faith in humanity is misplaced. Apologies can be used as fake ways to appease people and get them to stop annoying you or troubling you. That has been my experience (when the apology has been insincere). Letterman has a habit of attacking those he politically opposes. His intentions are suspect.

I don’t use my “feelings” to gauge what is an actual apology but the pattern of behavior behind it. That’s the conservative in me: I judge people’s actions. I also look a little bit more closely into what they say. That’s the writer in me. Maybe I just see words and how they’re applied a lot differently than you.

Obummer has a habit of attacking those he politically opposes: be it the Bush administration, health insurance companies, financial companies, and even Republicans that disagree with him. When you publicly pledge to reverse a previous administration’s policies, attack that administration, and then use that administration’s “failings” to make yourself seem like you’re in the audience’s corner then how can that not be seen as apologetic?

You can take how people apologize at face value but many others like myself know better. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Face it- Obummer doesn’t give much specifics for many of his “plans” and all many of us have is “speculation.”

People don’t mean what they say anymore, be it one’s own family/friends, politicians, or even a second-rate commedian. You keep your open mind while cynics like myself see what many people like Letterman and Obummer are truly are: those who don’t mean anything when they say it or stick to it when it’s no longer socially or politically convenient.

My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.

He should have just said ‘we submit’ Inshallah!!!

this is pathetic groveling…if you don’t want to call it an ‘apology’ its pathetic..and will cause the muslims to laugh at us, and cost the lives of americans as our enemies are emboldened….

Never said Pres Obama offered words of ‘conciliation’. I said he spoke history, truth and facts. And, since I do accept, or believe, there was any conciliation, there was no apology, according to your statement.

really? what do you call this? groveling?? bowing down…as to the MUSLIM KING???

In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

he spoke lies…europe’s ‘leading role’ in the world??? you mean leading the world into 2 world wars?? what else have they ‘led’ on?? colonialism?? seriously what has europe done to lead in the last oh say 100 years or so??

On June 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, Ragspierre said: #127

That is what is silly, and that is what makes you dishonest when you say, “I agreed with you that the Constitution is inconsistent, and therefore flawed. And, you take me to task for agreeing with you?”.

Do you even read what you write?

You said (cutting and pasting from your post #102),

“But the Constitution, being a human instrument, is inconsistent. Haven’t you noticed that?”
See? Your statement in the previous post was silly. This more recent post compounds it with one of your disingenuous deflections.

You used the word ‘human’ and I simply repeated it.

If I am dishonest for agreeing with you then then that ‘binary’ thing you mentioned is all about you.

Sorry, I know that isn’t true with respect to understanding. As to consistency, you are just queer for that concept.

Sorry? I suppose that is an apology of some sort.

Yep, I like consistentcy. Why is one thing an apology and not another?

I missed your post where you addressed why Pres Obama apologized without saying the word ‘apology’ or ’sorry’ and where you explain that Letterman’s apology lacks value, eventhough he said the words ‘apology’ and ’sorry’, in his statement. Yep, still looking for consistentcy and understanding.

Just give me the post # and I’ll go back and read it.