4 ms·
There are reasons Brits are "subjects", not "citizens". And why America declared No Truce with Kings. And why US presidents are not allowed to bow to kings. (W
by ncmncm 4y ago
There are reasons Brits are "subjects", not "citizens".
And why America declared No Truce with Kings. And why US presidents are not allowed to bow to kings. (Well, weren't until W did.)
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoSource? I thought it was Obama who bowed to kings.
- ncmncm 4y agohttps://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/bush-also-bowed-to-saudi-king/ https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/bush-also-bowed-to-saudi-k... People made a lot more fuss about Obama because, you know, "Barack Hussein Obama", etc. Trump was seen doing it too.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoIf so, then you singling out W seems... a bit slanted. But if those three did, then did earlier presidents, and they just weren't documented? Or weren't made a big deal of when they did?
- ncmncm 4y agoW did it first. So, no, citing W doing it first is not "slanted". Instead, claiming that Obama and Trump also violating their public trust makes my observation "slanted" is actively dishonest: I said that W did it first, and W did it first. Period.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agohttps://theculturetrip.com/asia/japan/articles/to-bow-or-not-to-bow-in-japan/ https://theculturetrip.com/asia/japan/articles/to-bow-or-not... HW, not W. And maybe others before; HW is just the first I found a reference to. (Also Clinton.) So it seems to have happened a lot more than I thought...
- ncmncm 4y agoBowing to someone who bows back is just a greeting.