[Drillbit]

Two years isn't going to change trends being established for over a decade.

Please note as a matter of fact, we export a lot of US hardwoods to China.

FDM ASIA - BUSINESS NEWS

Want to see a 2009 report?

Lumber imports move to varying market rhythms

Our by far biggest import of softwood is from Canada---over 92% of what is imported. Beyond that is Germany, and South America. The word "China" is nonexistent. The largest source of softwood that comes from the Pacific is New Zealand.



Anyway, return to the regularly scheduled programming.

[JSanders]

You're still offtopic,

You are welcome to open your thread on trade, lumber or whatever.

Thanks for understanding.

[test54]

Originally Posted by JSanders

You're still offtopic,

You are welcome to open your thread on trade, lumber or whatever.

Thanks for understanding.

how about the rest of the off topic things?

[test54]

Originally Posted by John Clark

I'm the angry one? I suppose so. I see Billions of tax dollars being given to bail out everyone who was stupid. Insurance companies, financial institutions, homeowners, etc. Then budgets being pushed through that triple the budget deficit in 10 years. Then they try and push their agenda through by using methods that only require 51 votes in the senate instead of the usual 60. Yes, I'm angry. I'm angry that my kids and grandkids are being robbed from and many are not even born yet. It's generational theft. And, for the record, I didn't like it when Bush did it either. But the $800B bailout was just all the saved up left wing agenda items from the past 20-30 years. They are the ones that approved bonuses for AIG, etc. And guess who ramrodded that through. So, yes, I'm angry. Then I see Obama bow to the Saudi king and it's upsetting. I see North Korea shoot a missile over Japan. What's Obama going to do? Oh, I'm going to the UN. Big deal. Iran is celebrating their national "Nuclear Day" today. I guess we just wait until Israel strikes Iran. Obama couldn't even get Europe to help with troops to Afghanistan. Obama told Europe we're not a Christian nation. So, yes, I'm angry. Angry at the direction our country is heading. Angry that doctors will be forced to perform abortions or lose their jobs. Angry that activist judges overturn legitimate votes on ballot measures. Angry that there is no way out of the spending the Obama administration is doing except for increasing taxes. Angry that he says 95% of Americans will not see one dime of increased taxes. It's just not possible! With his health care plans and energy plans we will all see our taxes go WAY up. And that doesn't even include the massive spending (oh, I mean stimulus) plan. It's not sustainable and it's irresponsible. I'm angry that conservatives have been sold out by Republicans, as well. Much of this is not even a right/left issue. It's a moral issue. Read the book of Revelations in the Bible. You'll see we are getting just what we deserve. When the people get wicked (as we are turning) then we don't prosper. Same sex marriage, abortion are just a few of the problems. Just as you have a right to your opinion, I have a right to mine. If liberals want to be insulted by being called a liberal, then I couldn't care less. I'm not insulted when anyone calls me a conservative, in any way, shape or form.

...and he bows to the Muslim Saudi king. *shakes head*

Yes I think angry is a good description. You are angry with everything I guess, this bow must have just been the kicker.
The basic question of spending vs. tax rates is discussed in other threads, as is religion, discrimination, Iran and most of your other points. Just saying in case you need to vent more.

[JSanders]

Originally Posted by test54

how about the rest of the off topic things?

How about staying on topic.

[John Clark]

Wirelessly posted (BB 11020)

Originally Posted by test54

how about the rest of the off topic things?

Why must you be so antagonistic? Do you try to push to see how far before you get banned?

[JSanders]

The thread is cleaned up with the off topic posts.

Test, I am quite disgusted with your crap today. Sorry, for the month.

[test54]

Originally Posted by JSanders

How about staying on topic.

I hope you got my ironic tone.

[JSanders]

Originally Posted by test54

I hope you got my ironic tone.

No, I didn't. Your post had no tone.

[test54]

Originally Posted by John Clark

Wirelessly posted (BB 11020)



Why must you be so antagonistic? Do you try to push to see how far before you get banned?

sometimes I play the devil's advocate to keep the discussion going. If I offended you then I apologize. I do not wish to be banned, but I don;t see anything that bad here.

everyone is so tense in here today, perhaps I will ban myself for the day.

[mriff]

Anyway, to get back on topic, diplomacy can be largely symbolic. Everybody looks for body language. Some would consider bowing a sign of weakness. Some of you will probably roll your eyes, but think back on the exchanges between Ron Reagan and Gorbachev. The camera saw nothing but a very tall nice looking man next to a hunched over man with a perpetual sour look on his face. Like it or not, the rest of world saw the same thing. And like it or not, our adversaries in this competitive global game look for signs of weakness.

How's that for getting us back on topic?

[JSanders]

Very nicely back on topic.

I remember the pictures of Gorby and Raisa (how did she spell that?) when they were here in the US and especially when they visited with Reagan at Rancho del Cielo (I was in it last year). I don't recall Gorbechev being humped over, but I do recall he had that 'chicago mobster' look about him, with his hat and overcoat. Certainly not a good image.

And it's the same here, with Obama flailing himself before the King. Not a good image. Perception is half the battle in diplomacy.

[Dawg]

Originally Posted by mriff

Anyway, to get back on topic, diplomacy can be largely symbolic. Everybody looks for body language. Some would consider bowing a sign of weakness. Some of you will probably roll your eyes, but think back on the exchanges between Ron Reagan and Gorbachev. The camera saw nothing but a very tall nice looking man next to a hunched over man with a perpetual sour look on his face. Like it or not, the rest of world saw the same thing. And like it or not, our adversaries in this competitive global game look for signs of weakness.

How's that for getting us back on topic?

Great post.

[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by John Clark

I see Billions of tax dollars being given to bail out everyone who was stupid. Insurance companies, financial institutions, homeowners, etc. Then budgets being pushed through that triple the budget deficit in 10 years. Then they try and push their agenda through by using methods that only require 51 votes in the senate instead of the usual 60. Yes, I'm angry. I'm angry that my kids and grandkids are being robbed from and many are not even born yet. It's generational theft. And, for the record, I didn't like it when Bush did it either. But the $800B bailout was just all the saved up left wing agenda items from the past 20-30 years. They are the ones that approved bonuses for AIG, etc. And guess who ramrodded that through. So, yes, I'm angry.

Well, I certainly agree with you about the bailout. Another thread for another time, but I'm as angry as you are about spending my money hand over fist so other people who didn't behave responsibly can get away with it.

Originally Posted by JSanders

And it's the same here, with Obama flailing himself before the King. Not a good image. Perception is half the battle in diplomacy.

We (the U.S. in particular, but other Western nations as well) have spent years telling everyone in the Middle East what to do. A couple of rogue states aside, it was unnecessary bullying. We did it because, well, we could. It's always easier to tell people what to do than engage them in dialogue. And -- like any little kid who's been pushed around on the playground once too often -- they're pissed now. Who can blame them?

I don't see this as any sort of a display of weakness. If anything, it was the reverse. It was a sign that we can, and intend to, work with Muslim nations instead of through them. We respect them enough to treat them with dignity, even though we do not always agree.

How is it ever weak to treat others the way you would want to be treated yourself? In my eyes it is the right thing to do, not least because it is the Christian thing to do.

[John Clark]

Wirelessly posted (BB 11020)

Why did the White House lie about it and say "he was bending over because of their height difference. I've watched the video quite a few times to see if there was anything that could be associated to height. It was a bow and the White House lied to us. That's what burns me most.

[JSanders]

Originally Posted by kathrynhr

In my eyes it is the right thing to do, not least because it is the Christian thing to do.

It is far from the Christian "thing to do". While Christ taught and displayed humility almost more than anything, He also taught and spoke very clearly about who and what a follower recognizes as their "king" and "King". He leaves no room for interpretation on that question, regardless of how one interprets His words.

But this is not about Obama's Christian intentions, it is about the sovereignty of the United States. A U.S. President is not subject to any foreign ruler. The Muslim community, in their reports and newspapers, are recognizing it as a subservient act, and even this morning I view CNN (finally) commenting on the matter, and even the newscaster there stated he saw a bow and wondered outloud how the White House could deny that.

Bowing as a U.S. President is not an act of humility or graciousness. There are physical ways to show that. Obama nodded at the Queen and King of England, to show homage. Again, I don't think Obama and his WH Protocol staff are stupid. It was an overt act Obama made and now, as JC mentioned, the White House is flatly lieing about it.

[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by JSanders

It is far from the Christian "thing to do". While Christ taught and displayed humility almost more than anything, He also taught and spoke very clearly about who and what a follower recognizes as their "king" and "King". He leaves no room for interpretation on that question, regardless of how one interprets His words.

Do you suggest that Obama is somehow treating the Saudi king as his own king, or as his savior?

Romans 13:7-8 (NIV)

"Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law."

Originally Posted by JSanders

But this is not about Obama's Christian intentions, it is about the sovereignty of the United States. A U.S. President is not subject to any foreign ruler.

A Christian, which Obama claims to be, is required to be respectful and loving, and to treat others with honor and dignity. That was my point. I don't believe, nor do I think any reasoning man would believe, that our national sovereignty is somehow in question because our president bowed.

Originally Posted by JSanders

The Muslim community, in their reports and newspapers, are recognizing it as a subservient act <snip>

Source, please. It will make it easier for us to debate.

Originally Posted by JSanders

...and even this morning I view CNN (finally) commenting on the matter, and even the newscaster there stated he saw a bow and wondered outloud how the White House could deny that.

See, this I do agree about. It was a bow. Why people are saying it wasn't a bow is beyond me. It was clearly a bow, and (to me) it's fine that there was a bow. I don't see it as a threat to liberty.

Originally Posted by JSanders

Bowing as a U.S. President is not an act of humility or graciousness. There are physical ways to show that.

It is an act of humility and graciousness if that's what he (Obama) intended and if that's what the king perceived.

Originally Posted by JSanders

Again, I don't think Obama and his WH Protocol staff are stupid. It was an overt act Obama made and now, as JC mentioned, the White House is flatly lieing about it.

Again, the lying is troubling to me also. No matter what the intended meaning of the bow, there is no reason to lie. It's not as if every one of us couldn't go pull it up on YouTube for ourselves.

[JSanders]

Kathryn, don't be silly, of course I don't think Obama is treating the Saudi King as his savior. I don't know Obama's heart. One one does.

Your scripture reference is out of context. Paul wrote those words as instructions to the followers because they had been asking questions about how they should they submit to government authorities. He told them that they certainly should (and here is verse 1-6 which you left out):

"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing."

Now, again, Paul wrote that about submission to authorities.

The Saudi King is not our President's authority, and thus he doesn't need to submit to them, and neither are we asked nor instructed to submit to those who are not our authority. I hope you will agree, and I hope you will see how you have taken the Roman scripture out of context.

For sources to the Muslim papers, I saw them on CNN, I am sure you can too.

You are missing the entire point (or maybe you just made the point for me?) about our President's role in submitting to the authority of other rulers. He should not do so, and a bow does just that. You can't redefine "bow", like a past President tried to redefine "is" and "sexual relations". A bow is a bow, and it is what it is. Your "interpretation" of what you would like a "bow" to mean, doesn't change the fact of what it actually is.

And if even the White House thought a bow didn't mean so much, they would not be trying to lie their way out of this bag.

[kathrynhr]

Before I answer your post, let me ask you a couple of specific questions, because I think this is the heart of our disagreement. You said:

Originally Posted by JSanders

You are missing the entire point (or maybe you just made the point for me?) about our President's role in submitting to the authority of other rulers. He should not do so, and a bow does just that. <snip> A bow is a bow, and it is what it is. Your "interpretation" of what you would like a "bow" to mean, doesn't change the fact of what it actually is.

Do you believe that when Obama bowed to the Saudi king, he was intending to indicate by doing so that he submitted himself -- and by extension the United States -- to the Saudi king's authority?

Do you believe the Saudi king saw Obama's bow as submission to his (the king's) authority?

[JSanders]

kathryn, I am hoping not. I can't read Obama's mind, I don't know what he believes.

But I know what a "bow" means, and the White House obviously does or they would not be lying and backtracking.

But let me ask you this... we know what a bow means and how it relates to protocol for a US President (or pretend we know, since it is widely held as an act of submission to one's authority)...

So, if Obama were to pull his middle finger out and shoot the King a bird, would we be here debating what THAT meant?

We all know what such a gesture is widely held to mean, but do you really think there would be one side saying it really only mean he "only slightly disrespects him in a less than loving way" and another side saying "well, he just told the King to F^&% off".

It is what it is. Don't try to define a "bow" for what you want it to be.