View Full Version : Not really fair to Mitt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-meets-british-officials-in-london/2012/07/26/gJQAfqixAX_story.html
OK, the guy really can't talk off script. Lots of people have that problem. Not a problem we actually want in a president, who has to talk off script often, but, I don't really think this is fair to Mitt. To be honest, it is fun to poke fun at him a bit at these gaffs, but they are just gaffs. I think we all know what he meant. I really hate it when the opposition takes something out of context, or a simple gaff, and makes it such a big deal.
To be fair, we all know that Mitt admires the British and the tremendous job it is to put on an Olympics.
What really bothers me, and it's something he said in the Brian Williams interview, is he said he wasn't going to watch the dressage competition. He said something like, 'my wife will watch but I won't." Really? No matter how out of touch this makes you seem with the average American, who doesn't have a stable of horses, much less a dressage stable of horses, this is your wife dude! His wife has a horse in the Olympics for gosh sakes! And he isn't even going to watch? I mean, because he is afraid of how it might look politically, he isn't going to support his wife in this very exciting and important moment in her life! Her horse made it to the Olympics! What a tool!
I'm sorry, whatever you think of this guy, he just becomes more and more of a cardboard cutout. And now the only thing we apparently are supposed to admire (don't talk about Bain, don't talk about his governorship), his strong marriage, seems so much a sham, like everything else. He doesn't mind us knowing he had an elevator for his cars, but he isn't going to support his wife in this very exciting life moment! A moment his wife will remember her whole life, no matter how it turns out.
Why does he keep getting it wrong. We didn't need to know about the car elevator, nobody really cares except to snicker, but we do need to know you at least support your wife. Really I am trying to like this guy, if not his politics, him. But he is making it harder and harder.
iris lily
7-26-12, 10:49pm
Oh peggy, I hereby remove from you any obligation to like Mitt. I know that you struggle mightily, but just give it up.
I'll play the devil's advocate: maybe he's like me in that watching competitions in which he has too much of a stake makes him anxious.
It is hard to draw conclusions from sound bites. I don't know him, but those around him seem to admire and respect him. I hate how the news media grabs on to the "sound bite" of the day and then tries to create news - seeking comments from the opposition. Obama seems to get in the same trouble when they take his telepromters away!
I think a lot of our nations troubles will lessen when the ecomony recovers and I think Mitt has the business sense to get the job done. He is a fixer and the ecomony needs fixing - big time. It is just scary to see the figures of those in the Obama White House that have NEVER worked in the private sector, never owned a business, never made payroll, never had to deal with all the government regulations on their business, etc. etc. Yet these are the people who are making policy that effect us all for a very long time.
PS: I think his wife will be the first to say -- and she has on many occasions I have seen -- that Mitt and her family have been her strength when she battled breast cancer and dealing with her MS. I think together they are a very strong team.
She mentioned that they were still working on the VP decision.
Having organized the SLC Olympics he could probably tell very easily if the Brits were ready for the games...he probably just shouldn't have verbalized it! :0!
He's not a tool. And he'll watch. He's just not admitting he's going to watch and support his wife because he thinks he should distance himself from dressage.
I think he's embarrassed of the money he's made and he's embarrassed of being Mormon and so tries not to address those topics and steer well clear of them. Not because he's actually embarrassed of being rich or Mormon but because he thinks most of America won't be able to handle his wealth or Mormonism (because they're both to really foreign ideas to most Americans) and he doesn't want to do anything that will remind America of these two descriptors of him. I think he underestimates Americans ability to deal with his wealth and Mormonism and still find him appealing.
He keeps messing up so badly and never rising to the occasion because he so desperately wants to win he's petrified he's going to blow it so he's extra, extra careful to do nothing and say nothing that could possibly offend anyone who might vote for him. As a result he appear as if he has no spine. Although in real life, I'm sure he has one.
I heard a UK commentator yesterday on NPR say that Mitt was right in being concerned with London's readiness for the Olympics. It seems that the private company providing security services for the Olypmics came up several thousand personnel short as the games prepared to begin, requiring the military to send in an equal number of troops to augment. The commentator ruminated that Mitt's concerns were echoed by most Brits, who simply thought it was poor form for a relatively unknown outsider to comment on.
Eggs and Shrubs
7-27-12, 9:24am
Deleted
He's not a tool. And he'll watch. He's just not admitting he's going to watch and support his wife because he thinks he should distance himself from dressage.
I think he's embarrassed of the money he's made and he's embarrassed of being Mormon and so tries not to address those topics and steer well clear of them. Not because he's actually embarrassed of being rich or Mormon but because he thinks most of America won't be able to handle his wealth or Mormonism (because they're both to really foreign ideas to most Americans) and he doesn't want to do anything that will remind America of these two descriptors of him. I think he underestimates Americans ability to deal with his wealth and Mormonism and still find him appealing.
He keeps messing up so badly and never rising to the occasion because he so desperately wants to win he's petrified he's going to blow it so he's extra, extra careful to do nothing and say nothing that could possibly offend anyone who might vote for him. As a result he appear as if he has no spine. Although in real life, I'm sure he has one.
Well I hope you are right. About the horse I mean. And nobody was making a deal of it, no sound bites from it, they were all too busy slamming him over the other gaffs. It's just something I noticed, that jumped out at me. He did seemed embarrassed, and if I were his wife I'd be more than a little peeved that he didn't jump up with a big grin and say 'you're damn right I'm going to watch it! It's my wife's horse for heaven's sakes!'
But even in his effort to get it right he gets it wrong. Democrats don't have a problem with wealth. There are plenty of wealthy liberals and we have had our share of wealthy democratic Presidents. It's not wealth, or success or even dressage that bother some, and not just democrats. It's the aloof, completely out of touchness he projects. You can be wealthy and real and 'in touch' with the average American life. Wealth has nothing to do with it. Effort, and awareness does. I just don't see any effort here. He really just doesn't get it!
As far as religion, Fox and Limbaugh and the right in general are keeping amazingly quiet on Rev. Wright and 'Obama is a Muslim', etc... I'm just waiting for that conversation. Do you think that preacher, what was his name, is going to demand the two candidates come and answer his questions again? No? Gee, it's not so important this time!
But, speaking of his wealth, unless he wants to keep having these awkward moments, which will only get more intense and more awkward, he needs to release his tax records for the last 5 or 8 years at least, just like every other serious candidate has in the past. What is he hiding? He expects my dad in a nursing home to come up with a drivers license or a passport in order to vote, but he isn't going to show HIS papers!
I heard a UK commentator yesterday on NPR say that Mitt was right in being concerned with London's readiness for the Olympics. It seems that the private company providing security services for the Olypmics came up several thousand personnel short as the games prepared to begin, requiring the military to send in an equal number of troops to augment. The commentator ruminated that Mitt's concerns were echoed by most Brits, who simply thought it was poor form for a relatively unknown outsider to comment on.
I agree - and I'm really weary of the press harping on minutiae like this. All the man did was tell the truth, and state the obvious. The Obama dustup (where he dared state that we all had help in creating our businesses - and a gaffe to boot) is the same stupid thing. It's like watching a bunch of 12-year-old girls: "OOOooh, do you know what he SAID!!?!" Worse, really.
No one can argue that Mitt Romney is qualified to judge how ready anyone is for Olympic Games. Almost uniquely qualified, in fact. Seriously, how many people is this world have been the leader of the committee that put a round of the Olymipc Games together? A few dozen maybe? Probably less than that are still alive. Out of seven billion that's not many. He has the credentials to be taken seriously with a comment like that. If I was a British leader I'd certainly be ticked off that he blurted it out in public, but behind closed doors I'd be gathering the committee and begging Mitt to come tell us what he saw that caused him to say what he said. Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right but what he saw wouldn't matter or maybe he's right and it could matter a great deal. If there is a problem its likely the Brits already know about it, but it couldn't hurt to consult with someone who has Mitt's experience. I'd sure be trying to figure it all out before tonight!
I thought his comments were idiotic. Face/palm idiotic, and just bad manners. He is a guest in another country, and his words are these? Oy.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2012/07/26/london-mayor-lampoons-romney-yes-we-can/
iris lily
7-27-12, 11:04am
....Democrats don't have a problem with wealth.
Oh yes they do. They really do. Well, some anyways.
I agree, Romney is one of very few people qualified to make an accurate judgement as to whether or not London is ready for the Olympics. That's not what this is about. Brian Williams threw him a softball question to allow him to say something harmless about how excited he was to be attending the Olympics and how great it's going to be and he still managed to bungle it. It's the same thing as the when he insulted the cookies. It was a social (and by extension, political) faux pas.
As far as the wealth thing. I think the reason he's unwilling to release his taxes because he thinks that his situation will be a big, glaring example to the rest of the country that the tax system is unfairly skewed to favor the wealthy and he thinks that will distance him from the rest of the country in the eyes of the average American and thus hurt his chances with them. I do not think he's done anything illegal in his taxes. Legality and ethics are two different things. Just because tax law as it currently stands is law, doesn't mean it's inherently fair.
I am a Democrat. I have no problem with wealth. I do have a problem with people exploiting others and the planet to increase their wealth. I also have a problem with those who are wealthy not paying their fair share of taxes to support the country. Personally, I don't think anyone but the very poorest of people in this country pays enough taxes but this especially applies to those at the very top of economic scale.
I do not think he's done anything illegal in his taxes. Legality and ethics are two different things. Just because tax law as it currently stands is law, doesn't mean it's inherently fair.
I agree that legality and ethics are not necessarily the same thing. It also brings up an interesting question. Just for the sake of this question lets say that the tax code is skewed to benefit the top of the scale. It is certainly legal for someone in that position to work to minimize their taxes, but is it ethical? If the individual who benefited happened to be a Senator who rammed favorable legislation through then you could absolutely have a question of ethics. If he evaded taxes through illegal means it would also apply. But what about your normal, run of the mill successful guy who plans his dealings to take advantage of the tax codes that keep his burden to a minimum in a way that is completely and totally legal?
Our guy didn't write the laws that benefit him. If he supported a candidate that he thought would pass such laws there is nothing unethical or illegal about that. If he feels that the system ins't fair, that he benefits disproportionately, is he ethically bound to...to what? To pay more in taxes than the law says he should? To work to change a law so it provides less benefit to him? Something else? It's an interesting question. I'm pretty sure I'd just keep chugging along with a strategy that minimized my tax burden, but that's just me (an I unethical?).
I've always had a great deal of respect for the decisions of Louis Brandeis. He had many things to say about taxation over the years he was on the Supreme Court. Here's one that makes sense to me...
“I live in Alexandria, Virginia. Near the Supreme Court chambers is a toll bridge across the Potomac. When in a rush, I pay the dollar toll and get home early. However, I usually drive outside the downtown section of the city and cross the Potomac on a free bridge. This bridge was placed outside the downtown Washington, DC area to serve a useful social service getting drivers to drive the extra mile to help alleviate congestion during rush hour.
If I went over the toll bridge and through the barrier without paying the toll, I would be committing tax evasion…if, however, I drive the extra mile outside the city of Washington and take the free bridge, I am using a legitimate, logical and suitable method of tax avoidance, and I am performing a useful social service by doing so.
For my tax evasion, I should be punished. For my tax avoidance, I should be commended. The tragedy of life is that so few people know that the free bridge even exists!”
Gregg:
Avoiding taxes is perfectly legal and ethical. Evading taxes (doing illegal things to lower your tax burden) is illegal and unethical as well.
Any person who pays more than they are legally obligated to pay is foolish or careless. I only pay the minimum I am required by law. I also think the tax laws are unfair and skewed to favor people with more money than others. People who are wealthier than I pay less than they should in comparison to me and people who are poorer than I pay more than they should in comparison to me. I think my tax burden should be raised. And I think Mitt Romney's tax burden should also be raised (disproportionally more than mine should be raised.)
Mitt Romney's problem is that he wants the best of both worlds. He wants use the unfair tax system to pay the absolute minimum he can legally do (as does everyone) but he also doesn't want to be judged for that as he runs for President. The problem for Mitt is that people judge the person they decide to make their President. That's not a problem for anyone but the person who's being judged. Americans want to think that the person they're considering making their president can relate to them because they have the same kind of day-to-day life that they have--or at least can understand their struggles. By nature of MR's experience throughout his life, he can't show that he understands the way the average American lives and struggles. And it appears that MR wants Americans to refrain from judging him in the way they want (and in the same way they've always judged their prospective leaders) and just give him a free pass in the area. That's fine. It may or may not work out for him.
I don't think it will work and that if he wants to get the job as President he should give the American public the information they want and be a grown up and take any knocks that they hurl at him. That will show what his character truly is and whether or not he deserves to be President.
No one can argue that Mitt Romney is qualified to judge how ready anyone is for Olympic Games. Almost uniquely qualified, in fact. Seriously, how many people is this world have been the leader of the committee that put a round of the Olymipc Games together? A few dozen maybe? Probably less than that are still alive. Out of seven billion that's not many. He has the credentials to be taken seriously with a comment like that. If I was a British leader I'd certainly be ticked off that he blurted it out in public, but behind closed doors I'd be gathering the committee and begging Mitt to come tell us what he saw that caused him to say what he said. Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right but what he saw wouldn't matter or maybe he's right and it could matter a great deal. If there is a problem its likely the Brits already know about it, but it couldn't hurt to consult with someone who has Mitt's experience. I'd sure be trying to figure it all out before tonight!
I can argue - or I could if I knew more about what he actually did. Just because someone has the "credentials" does not mean they are qualified or competent or had anything to do with what went on. Kind of like saying someone is qualified and capable to run this country because they were elected President.
Also, even if he is capable I question how privy he was to the internal workings going on in London. Wasn't it more of a off the cuff kind of statement he made than any sort of real assessment to what is going on?
For my tax evasion, I should be punished. For my tax avoidance, I should be commended. The tragedy of life is that so few people know that the free bridge even exists!”[/I][/COLOR]
No, the real tragedy of life in the US is that too many people, including apparently this Supreme, think that bridge was free!
I agree - and I'm really weary of the press harping on minutiae like this. All the man did was tell the truth, and state the obvious. The Obama dustup (where he dared state that we all had help in creating our businesses - and a gaffe to boot) is the same stupid thing. It's like watching a bunch of 12-year-old girls: "OOOooh, do you know what he SAID!!?!" Worse, really.
Actually what the President said WASN'T a gaffe. Not at all, in any way, shape or form, which makes what the Romney campaign did to his words even more insidious. If it had been a gaffe, complete unto itself, like so many of Romney's, then I could see them taking it and running with it.
But the thing they did, completely and totally dishonest, was to take a part of a sentence from a larger speech about something totally different and spin it as if the President was dissing business owners, or their effort. He wasn't and if you listen to the whole speech you will see that. No gaffe. Just Mitt Romney being incredibly dishonest to the core.
So...maybe we should look at his tax records. He has proven he is totally comfortable with being dishonest, so let's have a look! If he has nothing to hide, then show us. As I've said, he isn't the first wealthy man to run for office.
Frankly, if I were a republican I would be terribly insulted by this. Mitt is hanging his whole campaign on a dishonest twist of another man's words, words Mitt himself has spoken, essentially, and is betting his voters won't even bother to check it out, or are incapable of doing it, or just don't care. What an arrogant and insulting thing to assume. Is he right?
...this is all a whole lot about nothing. It has nothing to do with what Mitt can do for the re-vitalizing our ecomony - which I feel is the most important factor in this election cycle.
People need good family wage jobs. We need a government with policies that will encourage this - I don't see that in the current administration. Frankly, I hate the whole process, give me my ballot now thank you. *sigh *
I think Donald Trump is right - have Mitt release his tax records when Obama releases his college records - I think that is where the real titillating (I just love that word) story is! :0!
We can have no idea as to what Mitt is really capable of doing to revitalize the economy unless we see what he's already done in all areas of his life. He's willing to show us nothing and just says we need to take his word for it. For the most important job in the entire world? I don't think so.
We can have no idea as to what Mitt is really capable of doing to revitalize the economy unless we see what he's already done in all areas of his life. He's willing to show us nothing and just says we need to take his word for it. For the most important job in the entire world? I don't think so.
...and yet we have given President Obama a pass on this. I think if he releases his tax records we will find out -- HE IS A VERY RICH guy. WOW we already know that. He (his accountants) use every tax law that is legal and available to him to
avoid tax -- isn't that what we all do? Sorry no story here.
The Obama team is obsessed with this - hoping it will detract voters from their failed policies, high unemployment and sky high deficits. Now they want to take over health care? Has there EVER been a government program that can run more efficiently than the private sector? Fraud & waste have always plagued those programs.
Fraud & waste have always plagued those programs.
Halliburton. Lockheed Martin. Northrop Grumman. (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=02d36680-a643-4142-954d-f8aa80cd389f)Yeah, that's efficient.
I have to admit to being tired of Republicans and others claiming that government should run more like a business. I once worked at a company where the rule was to fire the 20% of the employees who got the lowest performance ratings. Not "unacceptable" ratings; just "the lowest". Should we do that in public? Take the 20% most elderly and sick and uneducated who can't work to the potential of a Mitt Romney, put them on a barge, and float them out to sea? Shop them around to poorer countries? What should we do? Those aren't solutions.
Should we means-test Medicare so we avoid the elderly who are already sick? Hey, they've lived a full life already. Why extend insurance to such an obviously bad risk? A private insurance company would never do that.
Maybe we should turn over the courts to legal firms. Why waste money on a trial when it's pretty damn obvious the perpetrator did it? You don't treat everyone alike in business; why do it in court? Ironically, business treats their frequent customers better than their "bingos" -- so should we provide special perks to repeat offenders?
Yeah, sounds silly when it's put that way. But government does not exist to serve customers; it exists to serve taxpayers, and that's pretty much all of us.
And fraud and waste have existed in pretty much every organization around -- public, private, NGO, not-for-profit. It's all in how you define it. Talk to people still working at Detroit automakers or their suppliers in 2012 and ask if they think bailing out GM and Chrysler was fraudulent and wasteful. Ask the people who were treated for free in Denver after that loose nut shot up a movie theater if their medical treatment was wasteful. Ask the people who were suckered by Bernie Madoff if his SEC investigation was fraudulent. What is the payback on any of that?
The bottom line is we all want the best for our citizens. How can we best do that? How are we going to pay for it? We need an administration that can balance what is best for us all -- and pay for it at the same time. These are not easy or popular decisions to make, but nevertheless they have to be made.
...and yet we have given President Obama a pass on this. I think if he releases his tax records we will find out -- HE IS A VERY RICH guy. WOW we already know that. He (his accountants) use every tax law that is legal and available to him to
avoid tax -- isn't that what we all do? Sorry no story here.
The Obama team is obsessed with this - hoping it will detract voters from their failed policies, high unemployment and sky high deficits. Now they want to take over health care? Has there EVER been a government program that can run more efficiently than the private sector? Fraud & waste have always plagued those programs.
No story here, move along folks, nothing to see here.....except, every candidate for president has released tax records going back to, and beyond, Romney's own father who released 12 years!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romneys-misleading-history-of-tax-returns-issued-by-presidential-contenders/2012/07/16/gJQAChunpW_blog.html
" In fact, McCain is really the exception. John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000, George W. Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, Bill Clinton in 1992 and Michael Dukakis in 1988 all released many years of tax returns when they ran for president against the incumbent, either at the time or because they had routinely released tax returns while in public office. (There was no incumbent in 2000.) Dole, in fact, released tax returns for a whopping 30 years.
Of course, Romney’s father, George Romney, is famous for having released 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in 1968, saying “one year could be a fluke.” As BuzzFeed showed, he paid an effective tax rate of 50 percent — those were days before the Reagan tax cuts."
There definitely is a story here. He is hiding something, otherwise he would release them. And whatever it is it must be a doozy cause if he thinks this pressure and bad press is better than whatever is in his records...Wow! It must be really bad! I'm just saying.
We can't talk about his years at Bain, where he outsourced some jobs, and others simply 'disappeared'
We can't talk about his years as Governor where he successfully crafted a health care law that Obamacare is based on, mandate and all.
We can't examine his tax records, for whatever reason, because he is hiding something there that he doesn't want part of public record, like Bain and Mass.
So, I guess we are supposed to elect him because he has great hair? Because he really really wants to be President? Because it's 'his turn'?
See, this touches on that whole aloofness and out of touchness I spoke of earlier. he expects people to vote him into office simply by virtue of him being HIM. I think the man absolutely believes he deserves it!
The more he hides about who he is and what he has done, the more he just looks like a snake oil salesman.
The more he hides about who he is and what he has done, the more he just looks like a snake oil salesman.
My state has some pretty rigorous financial disclosure laws for candidates to elected office. I recently ran for a local position. It took me a good portion of a day to fill out the forms and get them properly posted on the official state database. Now everyone can examine my holdings and a good part of my history.
This is for a position which pays a whopping $90/month (before taxes) and has jurisdiction over about 60 square miles and 3500 people.
So you'd think a Presidential candidate could at least meet the standard that local positions such as Library Commissioner or Cemetary Commissioner demand...
I am a big fan of transparency in government. Whenever I see an official or candidate trying to twist and turn to avoid transparency, I assume the worst, because it is so often true.
After the actions I observed his official supporters engaging in during the state-level party convention here, I don't trust him, or his supporters, as far as I can throw them.
Privacy does not equal secrecy.
He is wanting to be the leader of over 340 million people and has his finger on the trigger of weapons that could destroy the world. The president of the US should be transparent in everything he has done. There is not much privacy for the president.
Oh yes they do. They really do. Well, some anyways.
Speaking as a progressive, I don't have a problem with wealth, I have many frustrations with an economic system that distributes wealth in a way that many are left lacking basic needs. I also have problems with the fact that money buys access in our political system, regardless of whose money it is.
My state has some pretty rigorous financial disclosure laws for candidates to elected office. I recently ran for a local position. It took me a good portion of a day to fill out the forms and get them properly posted on the official state database. Now everyone can examine my holdings and a good part of my history.
This is for a position which pays a whopping $90/month (before taxes) and has jurisdiction over about 60 square miles and 3500 people.
So you'd think a Presidential candidate could at least meet the standard that local positions such as Library Commissioner or Cemetary Commissioner demand...
I am a big fan of transparency in government. Whenever I see an official or candidate trying to twist and turn to avoid transparency, I assume the worst, because it is so often true.
After the actions I observed his official supporters engaging in during the state-level party convention here, I don't trust him, or his supporters, as far as I can throw them.
If I knew nothing more about him, his (amusing to him) story of poor Seamus cowering in a crate on the roof of a car at sixty miles an hour in freezing weather, frightened to the point of losing control of his bowels, suffering for hours and hours, would make him a pariah in my eyes. I hope that poor dog found a decent home at the end of his hellish trip. Cruelty or stupefyingly bad judgment--either way, it's a disqualifier.
My state has some pretty rigorous financial disclosure laws for candidates to elected office. I recently ran for a local position. It took me a good portion of a day to fill out the forms and get them properly posted on the official state database. Now everyone can examine my holdings and a good part of my history.
This is for a position which pays a whopping $90/month (before taxes) and has jurisdiction over about 60 square miles and 3500 people.
So you'd think a Presidential candidate could at least meet the standard that local positions such as Library Commissioner or Cemetary Commissioner demand...
I am a big fan of transparency in government. Whenever I see an official or candidate trying to twist and turn to avoid transparency, I assume the worst, because it is so often true.
After the actions I observed his official supporters engaging in during the state-level party convention here, I don't trust him, or his supporters, as far as I can throw them.
If I knew nothing more about him, his (amusing to him) story of poor Seamus cowering in a crate on the roof of a car at sixty miles an hour in freezing weather, for hours, frightened to the point of losing control of his bowels, would make him a pariah in my eyes. I hope that poor dog found a decent home at the end of that hellish trip. Ingrained cruelty or stupefyingly bad judgment--either way, it's a disqualifier.
SteveinMN
7-27-12, 10:02pm
The bottom line is we all want the best for our citizens. How can we best do that? How are we going to pay for it? We need an administration that can balance what is best for us all -- and pay for it at the same time. These are not easy or popular decisions to make, but nevertheless they have to be made.
Absolutely. There are, without question, some very serious issues to be discussed in this country; issues which can no longer be addressed through always doing something the "way we've always done it" or by putting new labels on the same failed policies in the hopes that this time will be the charm.
We're on the same page on this, Greg.
If there was anything wrong with Mitts tax returns that information would already be out. You do know Obama's guy, tax cheat Timmy runs the IRS. You don't think that his past returns have been gone over by now. Really.
Do you really believe Mitt sets down at the kitchen table and does his taxes? He hires people to take care of his taxes and with his wealth he really doesn't want to break any laws, why would he. But like most, he only wants to pay what is required. Its just a distraction and another effort to make this about class warfare.
But I agree, lets open up both candidates records, including Obama's school records. What is Obama trying to hide? Must be something there.
My state has some pretty rigorous financial disclosure laws for candidates to elected office. I recently ran for a local position. It took me a good portion of a day to fill out the forms and get them properly posted on the official state database. Now everyone can examine my holdings and a good part of my history.
This is for a position which pays a whopping $90/month (before taxes) and has jurisdiction over about 60 square miles and 3500 people.
So you'd think a Presidential candidate could at least meet the standard that local positions such as Library Commissioner or Cemetary Commissioner demand...
I am a big fan of transparency in government. Whenever I see an official or candidate trying to twist and turn to avoid transparency, I assume the worst, because it is so often true.
After the actions I observed his official supporters engaging in during the state-level party convention here, I don't trust him, or his supporters, as far as I can throw them.
And that's the way it should be! If he wants his dealings private, he can remain a private citizen. But he is running for the highest office in the land, the world some would say. He should at least stand for the same scrutiny you and others at local levels gladly stand for.
...
But I agree, lets open up both candidates records, including Obama's school records. What is Obama trying to hide? Must be something there.
Do you think he cheated his way to graduating Magna cum Laude, or that someone else ran the Harvard Law Review under his name?
Do you think he cheated his way to graduating Magna cum Laude, or that someone else ran the Harvard Law Review under his name?
Why are the records sealed? Who knows.
Do you think Mitt cheated on his taxes?
Why are the records sealed? Who knows.
Do you think Mitt cheated on his taxes?
College transcripts are private by law, like medical records; I guess you could call that "sealed." I did a quick search and found that the only recent candidate who made his public was John Kerry, after he lost the election. Others were leaked, including George W. Bush's.
I doubt Romney cheated on his taxes (I'm sure his accountants are savvy enough to shelter his money), but it is usual for candidates to make several years of returns--or more--available to the public. One question that comes up is whether or not he was an active player at Bain after 1999.
Wildflower
7-28-12, 2:21am
If I knew nothing more about him, his (amusing to him) story of poor Seamus cowering in a crate on the roof of a car at sixty miles an hour in freezing weather, for hours, frightened to the point of losing control of his bowels, would make him a pariah in my eyes. I hope that poor dog found a decent home at the end of that hellish trip. Ingrained cruelty or stupefyingly bad judgment--either way, it's a disqualifier.
I totally agree! I think that's a sad commentary on his character right there. I mean, who would do that to an animal, especially a supposedly loved family pet....
ApatheticNoMore
7-28-12, 8:26am
Are you implying Obama doesn't have the degrees he says he has? If not why should I even care about someone's college transcripts and if they got all Cs even, that is at best a mediocre proxy for intellegence. For heaven sakes Bill Gates is a college dropout. http://www.collegedropoutshalloffame.com/ I'd way rather judge politicians (especially ones that have already held the office!) based on their actions and their policies. And if I judge those policies bad why should I even assume "oh it's because Obama is a dummy and got Cs", when he probably has dozens of advisors (many probably extremely intellegent but intelligent toward what end?).
Absolutely. There are, without question, some very serious issues to be discussed in this country; issues which can no longer be addressed through always doing something the "way we've always done it" or by putting new labels on the same failed policies in the hopes that this time will be the charm.
Yes, they are at best 19th century ideologies and it is a 21st century world. Think about it though, right and left, the ideologies do all originate in the 19th century. Not of course that all past beliefs have no merit (hey I kind of like some of the ideas in the constitution even), but have you noticed almost anything these people do at all grappling with the world as it is currently? Yea neither have I! Then again whatever ideologies they hold or sometimes just pretend to hold is perhaps all for show anyway (they really serve their campaign donors mostly).
Speaking as a progressive, I don't have a problem with wealth, I have many frustrations with an economic system that distributes wealth in a way that many are left lacking basic needs. I also have problems with the fact that money buys access in our political system, regardless of whose money it is.
That might the inevitable outcome of extreme wealth inequality taken beyond a certain point, that it inevitably captures the political system (and it becomes self-reinforcing at that point of course).
If the Obama campaign had good stuff to work with they wouldn't need to attack Romney and any of his personal records would be a non-issue. If the economy was chugging along, if unemployment was low, if people were buying homes, if there was a chicken in every pot all they would have to say is, "vote for me and get more of the same" and they'd win in a landslide. Of course they could use that same line now, but I doubt it would produce the same outcome. If you don't have a successful record to prop yourself up on the only other choice is to bring the other guy down. Yes, yes, the President has had many successes, many victories. Unfortunately for him he's stumbled in the areas that tend to concentrate votes.
SteveinMN
7-28-12, 12:01pm
If the Obama campaign had good stuff to work with they wouldn't need to attack Romney and any of his personal records would be a non-issue. If the economy was chugging along, if unemployment was low, if people were buying homes, if there was a chicken in every pot all they would have to say is, "vote for me and get more of the same" and they'd win in a landslide.
"What neither political party has ever learned is the most basic of all lessons: When you make someone else's character the issue, your own character becomes the issue too." --sci-fi author David Gerrold
I totally agree! I think that's a sad commentary on his character right there. I mean, who would do that to an animal, especially a supposedly loved family pet....
The same bully who thought it was a 'lark' or a 'prank' to chase down some poor kid in school, hold him down and cut his hair, then profess to 'not remember it' (just how many kids did he do this to to not remember it?) and kind of giggle about it. He found that amusing too, apparently.
If the Obama campaign had good stuff to work with they wouldn't need to attack Romney and any of his personal records would be a non-issue. If the economy was chugging along, if unemployment was low, if people were buying homes, if there was a chicken in every pot all they would have to say is, "vote for me and get more of the same" and they'd win in a landslide. Of course they could use that same line now, but I doubt it would produce the same outcome. If you don't have a successful record to prop yourself up on the only other choice is to bring the other guy down. Yes, yes, the President has had many successes, many victories. Unfortunately for him he's stumbled in the areas that tend to concentrate votes.
For heavens sakes! These aren't really personal records are they? And you know what? If the right is going to 'force the black kid to show his papers to the rich white guy", then by golly Mitt can show his papers.
Besides, his whole resume is Bain, and his governorship, and what a wonderful business person he is. OK, well, then show us. Does he really expect us to simply take his word for it? Well, some will, but those people would vote for a monkey if it had an R behind it's name.
he's hiding something and the longer he stalls, the worse it will be. It must really be bad if he thinks the pressure on him now, and not just from the left, is better than whatever is in his tax records! Holy crap on a cracker! as my sister is fond of saying.
Do you really think he shouldn't release several years of tax records like every other candidate, including his own father? And if no, why?
Peggy:
He's not going to release his taxes. He has done the cost benefit/analysis, made the decision and it's one he's sticking with.
For heavens sakes! These aren't really personal records are they? And you know what? If the right is going to 'force the black kid to show his papers to the rich white guy", then by golly Mitt can show his papers. ...
You are really unbelievable.
Now as far at Mitt's dog, I won't be defending that so don't expect me to. But I did hear a discussion of this issue on NPR from the original reporter who told the story 20 years ago (or whenever it was.) It was kind of interesting. The dog story stands as is. The reporter had interesting things to say about people's reaction to it.
You are really unbelievable.
Now as far at Mitt's dog, I won't be defending that so don't expect me to. But I did hear a discussion of this issue on NPR from the original reporter who told the story 20 years ago (or whenever it was.) It was kind of interesting. The dog story stands as is. The reporter had interesting things to say about people's reaction to it.
no Iris, what's unbelievable was the constant drumbeat from the right for the President of the United States to 'show his papers' to Donald Trump! And they all pretty much hail that as some big achievement! Why didn't you find that unbelievable?
no Iris, what's unbelievable was the constant drumbeat from the right for the President of the United States to 'show his papers' to Donald Trump! And they all pretty much hail that as some big achievement! Why didn't you find that unbelievable?
What I find unbelievable is your continuing treatment of the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States, as a race victim.
What I find unbelievable is your continuing treatment of the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States, as a race victim.
But isn't it nice to know that anyone who has the drive and desire can get there without all the old road blocks? Now that we have a poor, underprivileged, minority, son of an immigrant who ascended to the position of being the most powerful man in the world it appears we have overcome. You'd think his party would be happier about that. Maybe a black kid needs to be the richest man in the world, too. But wait! The world's richest man is Hispanic. Somebody please tell me, are we supposed to be happy or not?
"What neither political party has ever learned is the most basic of all lessons: When you make someone else's character the issue, your own character becomes the issue too." --sci-fi author David Gerrold
Exactly Steve. +1
What I find unbelievable is your continuing treatment of the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States, as a race victim.
And what we all find unbelievable is that one of the two major political parties has turned it's platform over to birthers, and truthers, and ignorant tea baggers. The two most powerful people in the republican party are neither elected. Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist. A hate mongering blowhard and an economically ignorant tea bagger. You all must be so proud...:(
So, pointing out the outrageousness of the President of the United States being hounded to show his papers to Donald Trump is unbelievable, but the actual act of it...not so much.....got it.
And what we all find unbelievable is that one of the two major political parties has turned it's platform over to birthers, and truthers, and ignorant tea baggers. The two most powerful people in the republican party are neither elected. Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist. A hate mongering blowhard and an economically ignorant tea bagger. You all must be so proud...:(
So, pointing out the outrageousness of the President of the United States being hounded to show his papers to Donald Trump is unbelievable, but the actual act of it...not so much.....got it.
Who exactly are you speaking for when you announce what "we all find unbelievable"? Or is it more of a "royal we"? That would explain your appointment of the two most powerful Republicans.
Surely the 46% of the voters currently favoring Mitt can't all be the lunatic fringers of your imagination. The streets would be running with blood, spent shells and expectorated chewing tobacco.
If I thought you were right, I'd probably jump to the Modern Whigs. As it is, I think I'll stick with the GOP a bit longer.
But isn't it nice to know that anyone who has the drive and desire can get there without all the old road blocks? Now that we have a poor, underprivileged, minority, son of an immigrant who ascended to the position of being the most powerful man in the world it appears we have overcome. You'd think his party would be happier about that. Maybe a black kid needs to be the richest man in the world, too. But wait! The world's richest man is Hispanic. Somebody please tell me, are we supposed to be happy or not?
I'll be happy when those in poverty & prison are not primarily people of color. That to me will be an indication that the so-called playing fields are leveling.
ApatheticNoMore
7-30-12, 1:39pm
If the Obama campaign had good stuff to work with they wouldn't need to attack Romney and any of his personal records would be a non-issue. If the economy was chugging along, if unemployment was low, if people were buying homes, if there was a chicken in every pot all they would have to say is, "vote for me and get more of the same" and they'd win in a landslide. Of course they could use that same line now, but I doubt it would produce the same outcome. If you don't have a successful record to prop yourself up on the only other choice is to bring the other guy down. Yes, yes, the President has had many successes, many victories. Unfortunately for him he's stumbled in the areas that tend to concentrate votes.
Yea I don't assume this is Obamas fault though. What I believe: manufacturing was hallowed out, other jobs were also outsourced (did you know they have people in other countries studying U.S. accounting standards. Why? They are cheaper than a U.S. trained accountant :( ). So maybe this is the inevitable result of years of trade agreements and the decline of the U.S. (what the U.S. government has spent our money on - wars we lost - maybe has not helped). I think this was COVERED UP for years with bubble after bubble. I think we've run out of lipstick for this pig, we've run out of ways to hide the reality anymore ....
And what we all find unbelievable is that one of the two major political parties has turned it's platform over to birthers, and truthers, and ignorant tea baggers. The two most powerful people in the republican party are neither elected. Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist. A hate mongering blowhard and an economically ignorant tea bagger. You all must be so proud.
I don't know that I'd generalize about tea partiers, but I hear you in general. There are lunatics that have taken over parts of that asylum (the Republican party), meanwhile a Democratic president proclaims the rights to kill U.S. citizens as he pleases. Lunatics in charge there as well. The whole thing is Bedlam unending.
The only thing I always remove the "we" from is the actions of the U.S. military. I won't say "we invaded Iraq". I did not invade Iraq!!! And I'm willing to bet neither did you. The U.S. military invaded Iraq! Using our tax dollars and some young people foolish enough to volunteer. I won't say, "we are at war with Yemen". The U.S. military is at war with Yemen. I am not at war with Yemen. I don't know enough about Yemen to be at war with it :D. The concept is absurd.
I'll be happy when those in poverty & prison are not primarily people of color. That to me will be an indication that the so-called playing fields are leveling.
+1
I'll be happy when those in poverty & prison are not primarily people of color. That to me will be an indication that the so-called playing fields are leveling.
While I don't usually look at such things just in terms of race, I do think that if we address poverty in a meaningful way it will go a long way toward reducing the prison population.
Yea I don't assume this is Obamas fault though.
Any new President gets what they get so the whole blame game is kind of pointless. Almost nothing is ever completely their fault or something they should completely get credit for. A President is (or should be) a leader who sets the tone of discourse and works to chart a general direction for the country and 3 1/2 years into a term is about all the time they get to accomplish that. Mr. Obama came to office, like every other President, with his own goals and his own ideas of how we should go about reaching them. The results of the election in November will show us if most people think he's got us going in the right direction or not. If the voters decide we need to do something different Mr. Romney will inherit some pretty significant issues. If not, Mr. Obama will get one more shot at fixing what's broke.
'force the black kid' ... cracker!
We see what you did there.
We see what you did there.
did i say cracker? I did not. And i really don't like you putting words in my mouth or attributing quotes or pictures or cryptic math formulas to me. Stop it! Now! It's dishonest.
I suppose you are the one who changed the title of this thread? (well now someone changed it back)
What I said is EXACTLY what happened. Pretty pathetic that what the right did to President Obama and his office is less 'outrageous' than me simply pointing it out!
For someone as overly-sensitive to the possible connotations of words as you seem to be, and with such grand theories about how such words are used by Mysterious Forces to advance their Secret Agendas, it is a bit impressive that you think we wouldn't notice your use of the word "cracker" in a post in which you are race-baiting.
Pretty pathetic that what the right did to President Obama and his office is less 'outrageous' than me simply pointing it out!
If there was any fog left peggy, that lifted it. I'll be curious to see how the left reacts to and treats President Romney.
President George Romney, I could have lived with.
For someone as overly-sensitive to the possible connotations of words as you seem to be, and with such grand theories about how such words are used by Mysterious Forces to advance their Secret Agendas, it is a bit impressive that you think we wouldn't notice your use of the word "cracker" in a post in which you are race-baiting.
.
LOL Seriously! You are actually trying to twist my saying 'Holy crap on a cracker' into something sinister?? How stupid do you really think the people on this forum are?? :laff::laff:
Dude, for a supposedly 'worldly' person, you sure are freaking isolated! If this wasn't such a pathetic attempt at cherry picking word twist, it might be funny. I think you need a few more lessons from the Romney camp, if you know what I mean. !Splat!
I suggest you watch Fox a bit more, or listen to Limbaugh for a few pointers. These folks have nasty down to a science, if that's what you are aiming for. I'm just saying...
What I find unbelievable is your continuing treatment of the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States, as a race victim.
No. What is unbelievable is that you persistently deny the existence of white racism in this country and continually demean any efforts to stand up to it.
The plain fact is that the president has been the subject of countless racially based attacks. The entire birth certificate crap underscores the constant blatant and subtle characterization of Obama as "other" and "foreign" which are just code for "non white". I don't know where you have been but I have heard many many jokes based on racial stereotypes passed on by Republican operatives and officials. Always followed by non apology apologies when they are exposed "IF I offended anyone blah blah blah. Comments that are shockingly and profoundly racist on right wing blogs basically calling Obama and FLOTUS the n word. Constant casual racism in every day conversations. Upstate in the reddest portions of my state the president is simply referred to as that n&@":".
He is not a victim per se because this racism while it must rankle and certainly adds nothing of value to political discourse has not prevented Obama from being successful in his life. Only a few generations ago black men were routinely denied due process and lynched. The mindset that allowed that to happen still exists though the power to act on it with impunity no longer exists.
There are elected officials on the national level who continue to peddle the birth certificate nonsense. The majority of registered Republicans think Obama is a muslim and a sizable number think he was not born in this country. Why is that? Who benefits from that? Who are they appealing to? Members of the NAACP? C'mon. Enough already. it is called the southern strategy. Look it up. There are still racists in this country and they vote too. Jeez just the other day I saw someone in a pick up truck riding around with a full sized confederate flag blazing in the wind. The confederate flag being displayed with gusto in 2012 in South Florida. That to me is full bore racist.
There are elected officials on the national level who continue to peddle the birth certificate nonsense.
Whether or not candidates should have to produce personal documents for public display seems to be an ongoing theme.
The majority of registered Republicans think Obama is a muslim and a sizable number think he was not born in this country.
That seems unbelievable if I'm thinking of the Republicans I know. Was that from a reliable source?
There are still racists in this country and they vote too. Jeez just the other day I saw someone in a pick up truck riding around with a full sized confederate flag blazing in the wind. The confederate flag being displayed with gusto in 2012 in South Florida. That to me is full bore racist.
A confederate flag is also taken by many to be a symbol of the south itself, not necessarily the pre-emancipation south. There are a lot of folks that are rightfully proud of being from the south and sometimes shared symbols can instill a certain solidarity. Now, I'm not comparing the history of the confederate flag to that of your favorite college team's mascot and I do not want us to forget the Civil War and all its tragedies, but I don't think flying a confederate flag on your truck automatically makes you a racist. A redneck maybe, but then I have a few decidedly redneck friends that are not racist. Prejudice and judgment are two way streets so we have to be careful about drawing generalities (some prefer the term "stereotypes"). It costs nothing to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
Whether or not candidates should have to produce personal documents for public display seems to be an ongoing theme.
That seems unbelievable if I'm thinking of the Republicans I know. Was that from a reliable source?
A confederate flag is also taken by many to be a symbol of the south itself, not necessarily the pre-emancipation south. There are a lot of folks that are rightfully proud of being from the south and sometimes shared symbols can instill a certain solidarity. Now, I'm not comparing the history of the confederate flag to that of your favorite college team's mascot and I do not want us to forget the Civil War and all its tragedies, but I don't think flying a confederate flag on your truck automatically makes you a racist. A redneck maybe, but then I have a few decidedly redneck friends that are not racist. Prejudice and judgment are two way streets so we have to be careful about drawing generalities (some prefer the term "stereotypes"). It costs nothing to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
Point 1 Here are the latest survey results. 30% of Republicans believe Obama is not a Christian. The number is about 50% in Alabama and Mississippi. Just google survey republicans obama muslim. Etc. You will find plenty there belive me.
Point 2 Obama has produced both birth certificate and tax returns. So totally false equivalence there. In any case not a single other president or candidate has been even asked to show his or her birth certificate at all let alone continue to be dogged by ridiculous rumors about its lack of authenticity after production of the document itself. This birther nonsense is racist to the core.
3. The civil war was first and foremost about the issue of slavery. There is nothing noble in that cause Case closed. Do you think swasticas are merely an emblem of German pride? Do you think Jewish folks shouldn't be so sensitive about the display of Nazi symbols? After all the Germans who fought in hat war were all about being proud of their heritage.
No. I don't give it the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt about what that flag really stands for.
3. The civil war was first and foremost about the issue of slavery.
Let's see what Abraham Lincoln had to say about that:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Slavery was wrong. Abe knew it. He didn't do anything about it until is was politically useful. You might want to read the actual text of the Emancipation Proclamation and notice that not *all* slaves were freed, for instance...
Kind of reminds me of Obama on don't-ask-don't-tell....
No. I don't give it the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt about what that flag really stands for.
I think the Confederate Flag means different things to different people. To some it's simply a symbol of a region, to others it's a symbol of southern culture, and others may see it as a reminder of past southern sovereignty. I'm sure that since it seems to be so reviled by those who believe race to be the end-all, be-all of southern culture, some may simply see it as a symbol of triumph for free speech in a PC world.
During World War II, as well as the Korean and Vietnam war, some self-styled 'rebel' units used it as a unit battle flag, which was it's origin.
I suspect it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty "what that flag really stands for" in the minds of others.
ApatheticNoMore
8-3-12, 9:52pm
Point 1 Here are the latest survey results. 30% of Republicans believe Obama is not a Christian. The number is about 50% in Alabama and Mississippi. Just google survey republicans obama muslim. Etc. You will find plenty there belive me.
To some extent it's unknowable, to the extent religion is an internally held belief system there is no way to know what the guy really believes, all that is knowable to external observers is extrenal actions (going to church say). Is there any evidence he is a Muslim, of course not, but what he really believes deep down is unknowable. Some could be reasoning something like "a real Christian would not do [x], Obama does [x] ..." You could officially ex-communicate the whole crusades with that reasoning I think but if that's how they want to interpret it ....
Well what about George W Bush and whether or not he is a Christian? The exact same reasoning applies, it's ultimately unknowable.
Do you think swasticas are merely an emblem of German pride? Do you think Jewish folks shouldn't be so sensitive about the display of Nazi symbols?
Have you seen the pics of the Marines and the Nazi runes? No, it's not appropriate, however considering the direction this country is going one might say it is apt (a cruel viscious conquering empire)
No. I don't give it the benefit of the doubt because there is no doubt about what that flag really stands for.
at the least they too are utterly insensitive, honestly they have no idea what that symbol might mean to minorities? (especialy when you are driving it on a vehicle around town), yea it could very well just be *astounding* jaw dropping ignorance of other perspectives, but it's still pretty f@#$d up.
I suspect it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty "what that flag really stands for" in the minds of others.
yes so then it would seem some empathy for what it means in the minds of many minorities would be called for and that people would find a better symbol at least.
...
yes so then it would seem some empathy for what it means in the minds of many minorities would be called for and that people would find a better symbol at least.
Or maybe we can honor true diversity and allow two Points of View about an object-as- symbol to co-exist in our country, we can not demand that one POV trumps another.
The reality with the Confederate flag is probably that most of mainstream America doesn't care, so minority views of it as a symbol that is good, or that is bad, are just that--minority views. They coexist in the big melting pot of the United States.
Or maybe we can honor true diversity and allow two Points of View about an object-as- symbol to co-exist.
What a novel approach!
Let's see what Abraham Lincoln had to say about that:
Slavery was wrong. Abe knew it. He didn't do anything about it until is was politically useful. You might want to read the actual text of the Emancipation Proclamation and notice that not *all* slaves were freed, for instance...
Kind of reminds me of Obama on don't-ask-don't-tell....
No. You are flat out wrong. The underlying cause of the civil war was always about slavery. And that flag is a symbol for a cause that had a morally rotten foundation. It is not just a harmless symbol of southern culture. It is a noxious symbol of exactly what is wrong
with "southern culture": A pervasive sense of resentment against the north, a revisionist history which makes the south the victim of aggression, a false sense of nobility for some chimera of a principle of state's rights (to be as racist as they wanna be), aggrandizement of "white redneck culture". Are all African Americans in this country just against white folks? Are they all unreasonably sensitive and ignorant? Are they all wrong to find the confederate flag offensive? When was the last time you saw a black person from the south displaying a confederate flag? Hmm? If it's just a harmless symbol of the south it would be universally displayed, not limited to white guys driving pick up trucks with bumper stickers saying "Nobama."
And can you actually get through a post without a gratuitous potshot at Obama? DADT is now history. Obama is the moving force that made that happen. It is called moral courage Alan. Because in case you had not noticed there are still lots and lots of folks who still don't like teh gayz. For no particular rational reason, just cause they were told gay sex is a sin or something which really just amounts to an excuse to justify discrimination.
Or maybe we can honor true diversity and allow two Points of View about an object-as- symbol to co-exist in our country, we can not demand that one POV trumps another.
The reality with the Confederate flag is probably that most of mainstream America doesn't care, so minority views of it as a symbol that is good, or that is bad, are just that--minority views. They coexist in the big melting pot of the United States.
Yes Iris. People are allowed to display it and they are allowed to display Nazi symbols but people also are allowed to be offended and criticize such displays. These symbols exemplify the attitudes of the people who display them and those attitudes are morally and factually flawed. It really is too bad that there is still so much hatred and ignorance on display because real life hatred and prejudice do have real world consequences. For example you could use racial animus as a politician and distract people away from the issues that really do matter and in such a way convince people to vote against their own interests. Divide and conquer. Win at all costs and not stand up for what is right morally so that racists believe they have society's sanction. After all if that politician is racist it must be okay. So then you get people who feel little compunction against discriminating or even physically harming people they believe are less than human. It does matter Iris. Just last week some guy shot a black man and when they came to arrest him he was surprised. He said well it was just a n@&$)(
This is not just some live and let live thing. You may have a right to do something, but doing it is not always morally right.
ApatheticNoMore
8-4-12, 10:57am
The right is just free speech, I'm very near a civil liberties absolutist, really.
But that if far from regarding that behavior as acceptable. I mean to say a symbol can have different meanings is all so postmodernist and all (how can we *really* know what a symbol means? how can we really know what a text says? etc. etc.). And really all so abstract ("diversity of opinion") - as if it's no more provocative than debating the economic results of the minimum wage or something (ha which is not without provacation itself). But that all rather lacks context, it won't contextualize african american history and historical opression, and how that symbol is viewed. You think it would be mere politeness to find a better symbol.
And if most people don't care about it, well by and large I have no reason to care about it either. Look I ran across a gladstone flag flapping in the breeze the other day, it amused me :), and that's a pretty rare sight. But confederate flags in California, no ..... you just don't see them. I just find it odd that anyone would defend them (beyond free speech grounds, which yes you do defend for neo-nazis even). You think that at the very least displaying them would be considered awefully rude.
The War between the States was a huge deal that still affects life in the South today. As a northerner and part of the conquering tribe, I don't think twice about it ever. We won, it's over, move on, game on. But for the conquered in the South it is a deal, and to some who remain it is a Big Deal. Civil War is a terrible thing and like tribal wars, after it is over, the conquered and conquerors have to live together. Hated and resentment never ends when stories of wrongs and atrocities are passed on from generation to generation.
So yeah, there are points of view that vary from my worldview and that have deep historical and cultural roots. One of those views is a pervading sadness on what was lost in that war.
But I would also say that racial division is even deeper due to this country's history of slavery, another example of the horrific things that humans do to one another.
The man who shot a black man was wrong to think of his victim as lesser. That is a human failing, and it's not necessarily, although often is, directed toward people of color.
... For example you could use racial animus as a politician and distract people away from the issues that really do matter and in such a way convince people to vote against their own interests. ...
please, not that again.
I am too stupid to know what is good for me and The Great and Good Obama is only looking out for me, the 99%. Except that I am not that stupid.
please, not that again.
I am too stupid to know what is good for me and The Great and Good Obama is only looking out for me, the 99%. Except that I am not that stupid.
No. I am sure that you will take a good long look at the economic plans and tax policies advanced by both candidates using objective criteria set forth by non partisan groups and vote for exactly the candidate who will benefit you personally financially the most. I'm sure that you would never get distracted by dog whistles about welfare fraud and black panthers intimidating white voters and Obama not releasing his college grades cuz that would show he's just a dumba$$ affirmative action baby and Obama pals around with terrorists and his birth certificate is fake and his wife hates white people...unfortunately not everyone is as rational as you are. Why do you suppose these "issues" are advanced by the right wing media? I looked at Romney's tax plan. I looked at Obama's. Guess what? I'm going with the one that's going to cost me less in taxes and that is Obama's tax plan. You can go ahead and vote to keep Mitt's taxes lower and your taxes higher if that is what makes you happy but be clear with yourself about what the end result will be. More out of YOUR pocket.
ApatheticNoMore
8-4-12, 12:56pm
Personally I'll probably go so far as to vote to raise my taxes :). Because this state is in bad budget trouble. My self interest in preserving a state higher education system isn't necessarily because I plan to enroll (although if I ever did it's a plus).
No. I am sure that you will take a good long look at the economic plans and tax policies advanced by both candidates using objective criteria set forth by non partisan groups and vote for exactly the candidate who will benefit you personally the most
hahaha, as if even class analysis is supposed to be reduced to this level of isolated atomistic decision making, just what's good for my individual personal self. Oh I own some energy stocks, better drill the arctic! >8) I hear that perserving the planet might hurt 401ks - better not bother. Decision making that is this isolated isn't voting one's interest, it's not even one's interest properly understood (which is a *broad* understanding), it's just being stupid. It's like Marx channeled through Ayn Rand with a bit of homo economus thrown in - really it is that confused.
Personally I'll probably go so far as to vote to raise my taxes :). Because this state is in bad budget trouble. My self interest in preserving a state higher education system isn't necessarily because I plan to enroll (although if I ever did it's a plus).
hahaha, as if even class analysis is supposed to be reduced to this level of isolated atomistic decision making, just what's good for my individual personal self. Oh I own some energy stocks, better drill the arctic! >8) I hear that perserving the planet might hurt 401ks - better not bother. Decision making that is this isolated isn't voting one's interest, it's not even one's interest properly understood (which is a *broad* understanding), it's just being stupid. It's like Marx channeled through Ayn Rand with a bit of homo economus thrown in - really it is that confused.
I think one reason CA is in such a hole right now is largely due to its past success. So much long term planning (like pensions) was done based on expected increased growth due to past growth, which allows for a lot of planning ahead with the expectation that when the time comes you'll be in a much better position and it will be no problem tackling it (also known as making commitments with no idea how they will be paid for). Of course the economic growth did not last forever, and now they are stuck. Kind of like a household racking up debt based on upcoming big raises and bonuses, and then getting laid off.
I think the Confederate Flag means different things to different people. To some it's simply a symbol of a region, to others it's a symbol of southern culture, and others may see it as a reminder of past southern sovereignty. I'm sure that since it seems to be so reviled by those who believe race to be the end-all, be-all of southern culture, some may simply see it as a symbol of triumph for free speech in a PC world.
During World War II, as well as the Korean and Vietnam war, some self-styled 'rebel' units used it as a unit battle flag, which was it's origin.
I suspect it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty "what that flag really stands for" in the minds of others.
Hmm....I would have thought that as a gay man you would have a little bit more empathy and understanding.
I think the Confederate Flag means different things to different people. To some it's simply a symbol of a region, to others it's a symbol of southern culture, and others may see it as a reminder of past southern sovereignty. I'm sure that since it seems to be so reviled by those who believe race to be the end-all, be-all of southern culture, some may simply see it as a symbol of triumph for free speech in a PC world.
Alan: I am a Southerner and I can tell you there is a regional understanding of exactly what that flag stands for and it ain't about southern sovereignty. The Stars and Bars is about racism conveniently couched in history. But it's still racism and everyone knows it.
Iris--I think we all won that war and most Southerners know it.
I think it's naive for anyone to claim that there aren't plenty of people who hate Obama because he's a Democrat and hate him even more because he's a the first (official) black Democrat president. Demanding his birth certificate and his school transcripts is about delegitimizing him and he must be delegitimized because he's black and the president.
And can you actually get through a post without a gratuitous potshot at Obama? DADT is now history. Obama is the moving force that made that happen. It is called moral courage Alan. Because in case you had not noticed there are still lots and lots of folks who still don't like teh gayz. For no particular rational reason, just cause they were told gay sex is a sin or something which really just amounts to an excuse to justify discrimination.
The post you responded to was not mine, but that's OK, I hear we all look alike.
Alan: I am a Southerner and I can tell you there is a regional understanding of exactly what that flag stands for and it ain't about southern sovereignty. The Stars and Bars is about racism conveniently couched in history. But it's still racism and everyone knows it.
Iris--I think we all won that war and most Southerners know it.
I think it's naive for anyone to claim that there aren't plenty of people who hate Obama because he's a Democrat and hate him even more because he's a the first (official) black Democrat president. Demanding his birth certificate and his school transcripts is about delegitimizing him and he must be delegitimized because he's black and the president.
I think many people channel their private issues through the general populace, without ever taking the time to understand others. As an example, some folks seem to see everything through the prism of race, while others don't. Hopefully, one day we'll all expand our horizons.
Hmm....I would have thought that as a gay man you would have a little bit more empathy and understanding.
LOL, so now you're trying to get my goat by making unfounded accusations just to see how I will respond? Come back when you've got something of substance to discuss Peg cause this is an epic fail. :+1:
Hmm....I would have thought that as a gay man you would have a little bit more empathy and understanding.
Is this supposed to be an insult? Why would being gay be something you'd use to denigrate Alan with? There's nothing wrong with being gay, right?
Truly, this is a bizarre statement. I have to wonder if you are smokin' something this evening, peggy.
I think many people channel their private issues through the general populace, without ever taking the time to understand others. As an example, some folks seem to see everything through the prism of race, while others don't. Hopefully, one day we'll all expand our horizons.
I honestly don't understand what you're referring to here. Are you trying to say I (or another poster) have race issues and so are transferring them to the general population to rationalize the discomfort we feel with our own racism? Could you please be more specific?
And what did you mean by the platitude?
I honestly don't understand what you're referring to here. Are you trying to say I (or another poster) have race issues and so are transferring them to the general population to rationalize the discomfort we feel with our own racism? Could you please be more specific?
And what did you mean by the platitude?
I think it's fair to say that anyone who says something like "The Stars and Bars is about racism conveniently couched in history. But it's still racism and everyone knows it.", is probably projecting their own prejudices. Too many people see others actions or preferences through the distorted lens of racism, which is sad.
I simply can't think of a nicer way to say it.
So I'm racist because I recognize it exists but you don't believe that when the hard right-wingers demand Barack Obama's transcripts and reject his State of Hawaii birth certificate as a fake or claim that his mother sent birth announcements to the Hawaii newspapers from her Kenyan maternity bed they are motivated by racism?
Come on, you must know how preposterous that is.
I promise you with complete and total sincerity, that I am not racist but I know definitively it exists. I am not a racist because I empathize with people who are treated shabbily and oppressed because they don't fit into the dominant group. I find it reprehensible. I don't engage in it.
But if you like you can believe that I'm a racist and the Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump and their ilk aren't. It's your right.
But you're wrong.
You're right about one thing. That was a very nice way of saying something very hateful.
So I'm racist because I recognize it exists but you don't believe that when the hard right-wingers demand Barack Obama's transcripts and reject his State of Hawaii birth certificate as a fake or claim that his mother sent birth announcements to the Hawaii newspapers from her Kenyan maternity bed they are motivated by racism?
Come on, you must know how preposterous that is.
I promise you with complete and total sincerity, that I am not racist but I know definitively it exists. I am not a racist because I empathize with people who are treated shabbily and oppressed because they don't fit into the dominant group. I find it reprehensible. I don't engage in it.
But if you like you can believe that I'm a racist and the Rush Limbaugh and Donald Trump and their ilk aren't. It's your right.
But you're wrong.
You're right about one thing. That was a very nice way of saying something very hateful.
Perhaps you should read my comments again. I didn't suggest that you were racist, but rather that you may be using racism as the preferred motivation for those you may disagree with or disapprove of.
I contend that people's motivations are often much more complex than that tiresome, but dependable accusation accounts for.
LOL, so now you're trying to get my goat by making unfounded accusations just to see how I will respond? Come back when you've got something of substance to discuss Peg cause this is an epic fail. :+1:
It's an unfounded accusation to say you are gay? Really? How odd! How truly odd that you would find umbrage in me calling you happy, carefree, joyous! But of course you know that words hold SO many different meanings to many people. You of all people should not find offense in that! Of course, NO word or symbol holds primary meaning to the vast vast majority of people! Words and symbols NEVER change in meaning over time. Never!
I agree with you. We should cling to any archaic, myopic meaning of any symbol or word if it serves our political or prejudicial purpose. We can always claim innocent meaning while stabbing with out rhetorical sword. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it. Especially feigned ignorance.
It's an unfounded accusation to say you are gay? Really? How odd! How truly odd that you would find umbrage in me calling you happy, carefree, joyous! But of course you know that words hold SO many different meanings to many people. You of all people should not find offense in that! Of course, NO word or symbol holds primary meaning to the vast vast majority of people! Words and symbols NEVER change in meaning over time. Never!
I agree with you. We should cling to any archaic, myopic meaning of any symbol or word if it serves our political or prejudicial purpose. We can always claim innocent meaning while stabbing with out rhetorical sword. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it. Especially feigned ignorance.
Peggy, thanks for going out of your way to help me make my point. An object lesson on the perils of seeing every word or symbol through the filter of our own prejudices is always enlightening.
As a fan of 70's southern rock, it honestly never occured to me that Lynard Skynard's use of the confederate flag was an overtly racist symbol. I think we all understood that it was a symbol of the south. It's too bad we've become so narrow minded and singularly focused.
Anyway, thanks again for backing me up, even if unintentionally.
ApatheticNoMore
8-5-12, 12:15pm
It's an unfounded accusation to say you are gay? Really? How odd! How truly odd that you would find umbrage in me calling you happy, carefree, joyous! But of course you know that words hold SO many different meanings to many people. You of all people should not find offense in that! Of course, NO word or symbol holds primary meaning to the vast vast majority of people! Words and symbols NEVER change in meaning over time. Never!
I agree with you. We should cling to any archaic, myopic meaning of any symbol or word if it serves our political or prejudicial purpose. We can always claim innocent meaning while stabbing with out rhetorical sword. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it. Especially feigned ignorance.
+1 (I was beginning to suspect that you were indeed smoking something)
As a fan of 70's southern rock, it honestly never occured to me that Lynard Skynard's use of the confederate flag was an overtly racist symbol. I think we all understood that it was a symbol of the south. It's too bad we've become so narrow minded and singularly focused.
Actually I think refusing to see how offesive this symbol is to those who have indeed suffered historical repression in this country, and practicing basic politeness by not parading the symbol around in public is (at the least) narrow minded. It can't even fathom why other people might be offended (those who just a few decades ago feared crosses burning on their yards! why would they take offense?). But if I was a minority seeing that symbol the flight or fight instinct would be strongly triggered, becase that historical necessity would be burned into me.
Apparently there are no offensive or racist symbols when one does not know the portrayer's intent.
Apparently there are no offensive or racist symbols when one does not know the portrayer's intent.
Agreed. Feigned innocence/ignorance of common usage or meaning is the refuge of the bigoted, small minded, cowardly, and just plain bad mannered.
Then they take umbrage at what they disgustingly call PC, which those of us from the south called simply polite good manners.
Whatever the confederate flag USED to stand for, it only stands for bigotry now. Yes, I hate like hell that the symbol of my part of the country has been co-opted by hate groups and bigoted rednecks, but there you are. It has, and nothing I can do will change that, and waving that flag now shows either incredible ignorance or solidarity with those groups, period. Just as calling someone gay means they are homosexual, period. This is not an insult in my family, by the way, but we all know what it means, NOW. Maybe it meant something else in the 1800's, maybe it meant something else 50 years ago, but things change. It's NOT 50 years ago, as it turns out, and I'm guessing you don't announce at your workplace that you are gay. You couldn't even work for chick-fil-a if you did, apparently, and it isn't because they don't like happy people!
Anyone who waves that flag claiming some other 'meaning' is either ignorant, or pretending to be ignorant.
Peggy, thanks for going out of your way to help me make my point. An object lesson on the perils of seeing every word or symbol through the filter of our own prejudices is always enlightening.
As a fan of 70's southern rock, it honestly never occured to me that Lynard Skynard's use of the confederate flag was an overtly racist symbol. I think we all understood that it was a symbol of the south. It's too bad we've become so narrow minded and singularly focused.
Anyway, thanks again for backing me up, even if unintentionally.
Alan, you made MY point. You took offense at my calling you gay BECAUSE, and this is important, WORDS AND SYMBOLS HAVE COMMON MEANING. You took the accepted meaning, the meaning everyone knows. I just wanted to show you how context, time, and usage are connected.
But, you wish to play ignorant, fine. Know that you will be thought of as ignorant, bigoted, or simply as dense as a brick, but that's your call. Personally I believe pretended ignorance has no place in intelligent discussion so I'm done. Carry on. Freedom of speech allows you to be as bigoted as you want.;)
Alan, you made MY point. You took offense at my calling you gay BECAUSE, and this is important, WORDS AND SYMBOLS HAVE COMMON MEANING. You took the accepted meaning, the meaning everyone knows. I just wanted to show you how context, time, and usage are connected.
But, you wish to play ignorant, fine. Know that you will be thought of as ignorant, bigoted, or simply as dense as a brick, but that's your call. Personally I believe pretended ignorance has no place in intelligent discussion so I'm done. Carry on. Freedom of speech allows you to be as bigoted as you want.;)
You must have missed the part where I said that you were obviously trying to get a rise out of me in order to see a specific response and that I wasn't playing that game, therefore, epic fail. I'm not sure where you see the offense, but then again, this entire turn in the conversation has been an exercise in choosing to see things whether they're there or not, making judgements about others intentions and beliefs based upon your own prejudices.
Personally, I think that's the sign of a true bigot, but you're our bigot and I do love reading your twisted logic, so, carry on.
... WORDS AND SYMBOLS HAVE COMMON MEANING. ...
They do. And they don't.
Peggy, I don't trust your interpretation of issues and events, including symbols, because for all of these years you and I come to different conclusions on the same set of facts. You see bogeymen where I do not. Likewise, my bogeymen are not yours. Can you accept that you and I will not come to agreement on a common meaning of many things including words and symbols? But I will say, and this will surprise you, that you MAY be right about how a majority of people now use the Confederate flag. I simply don't know. I don't live in the south. I don't know anyone who displays that flag (although I thought that the conflict within our own state about displaying it in a cemetery where Confederate soldiers were buried was absolutely ridiculous. Of COURSE it's an appropriate symbol for those dead men. ) I accept that common use MAY BE changing and that a majority of those who display that flag MAY have ill will towards persons of color. But I don't know that as fact.
Since you focused the discussion on flags as race baiting symbols I'll tell about something that happened to me that is an interesting illustration of this concept, a reversal. In 1997 when the Princess of Wales died suddenly, I put up a small tribute in front of my house to her. It was a large Union Jack with flowers and a small photo.
Someone vandalized it. While I'll never know why, one theory I have is that kids from the projects (most certainly the vandalizers) did it because they saw the cross bars of the Union Jack as that of the Confederate Flag. They saw a bogeyman that wasn't there. Vandalizing things here is rare. Usually small property crimes here are out and out theft, they don't bother destroying something for the sake of destroying things.
Race baiting is a popular past time in St. Louis. You would do well here.
They do. And they don't.
...
Since you focused the discussion on flags as race baiting symbols I'll tell about something that happened to me that is an interesting illustration of this concept, a reversal. In 1997 when the Princess of Wales died suddenly, I put up a small tribute in front of my house to her. It was a large Union Jack with flowers and a small photo.
Someone vandalized it. While I'll never know why, one theory I have is that kids from the projects (most certainly the vandalizers) did it because they saw the cross bars of the Union Jack as that of the Confederate Flag. They saw a bogeyman that wasn't there. Vandalizing things here is rare. Usually small property crimes here are out and out theft, they don't bother destroying something for the sake of destroying things.
Race baiting is a popular past time in St. Louis. You would do well here.
OK. Time to come clean. 'Twas I. Of course you wouldn't recognize me--that was before I bought my geezer lady cliche' car--and I crept up to the memorial in the middle of the night. (I admit I took a moment to admire your lovely Victorian cottage and garden...) And then I trashed that sucker! Never could stand the lovely Lady Di, who embraced vapidity, neurosis, and vanity as enthusiastically as she did other women's husbands. And then was endlessly venerated like a saint while Mother Teresa got the bum's rush into eternity.
And I'm not sorry! (Except for the lily I inadvertently trampled in my rush to escape unnoticed. Sorry about that.) http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/snoozer/moderator.gif
OK. Time to come clean. 'Twas I. Of course you wouldn't recognize me--that was before I bought my geezer lady cliche' car--and I crept up to the memorial in the middle of the night. (I admit I took a moment to admire your lovely Victorian cottage and garden...) And then I trashed that sucker! Never could stand the lovely Lady Di, who embraced vapidity, neurosis, and vanity as enthusiastically as she did other women's husbands. And then was endlessly venerated like a saint while Mother Teresa got the bum's rush into eternity.
And I'm not sorry! (Except for the lily I inadvertently trampled in my rush to escape unnoticed. Sorry about that.) http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/snoozer/moderator.gif
I agree with your characterization of the Princess of Wales. I was more interested in the Cult of Diana than Diana herself but in order to study the Cult, it's necessary to study the source material and I was a card carrying member of the Fanclub. Well, figuratively speaking. :laff: She was a train wreck and captured my imagination like no one else. Now I've just got Toddlers and Tiaras and Dance Moms and the like to occupy me, they are just poor seconds.
That lily recovered just fine so you don't need to worry about it!
The post you responded to was not mine, but that's OK, I hear we all look alike.
My bad! Sorry Alan.
As a fan of 70's southern rock, it honestly never occured to me that Lynard Skynard's use of the confederate flag was an overtly racist symbol.
Exactly what song is it you want to hear, Alan? As a kid who was also a Zepplin fan (in addition to Skynard) I can tell you the song remains the same.
My bad! Sorry Alan.
Missed key stroke or Freudian slip? Isn't it strange how simple it becomes to make assumptions regarding who said what? It must be a very small step to simply filling in the blank of what someone means once you're already that far along.
ApatheticNoMore
8-6-12, 11:19am
Missed key stroke or Freudian slip? Isn't it strange how simple it becomes to make assumptions regarding who said what? It must be a very small step to simply filling in the blank of what someone means once you're already that far along.
I just assumed it was the funky commenting system at this site :). I can live with it, and oh the pseudo-html, but it's a bit of a bother.
WORDS AND SYMBOLS HAVE COMMON MEANING
They do. And they don't.
Exactly Iris. It is very easy to take words out of context and make the speaker of those words appear to be almost anything regardless of the original intent. Ask either Presidential candidate. There is little difference in symbols. Take a hooked cross (also called a swastika) for example. Here is what the US Holocaust Memorial Museum has to say about that symbol...
"The swastika has an extensive history. It was used at least 5,000 years before Adolf Hitler designed the Nazi flag. The word swastika comes from the Sanskrit svastika, which means “good fortune” or “well-being." The motif (a hooked cross) appears to have first been used in Neolithic Eurasia, perhaps representing the movement of the sun through the sky. To this day it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Odinism. It is a common sight on temples or houses in India or Indonesia. Swastikas also have an ancient history in Europe, appearing on artifacts from pre-Christian European cultures. "
The rest of the story is here (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007453&gclid=CLfA9a6_07ECFbEBQAodHHIAlA). I see no reason to condemn the symbol or attempt to ban its use just because certain people use that symbol to represent things that go against my moral compass.
I just assumed it was the funky commenting system at this site :). I can live with it, and oh the pseudo-html, but it's a bit of a bother.
And when used with an i phone all the worse. I will continue to assume that those who display the confederate flag are either racist, insensitive or ignorant. And I really do wonder about those who offer a full throated defense of such displays as benign and devoid of racist overtones.
Exactly Iris. It is very easy to take words out of context and make the speaker of those words appear to be almost anything regardless of the original intent. Ask either Presidential candidate. There is little difference in symbols. Take a hooked cross (also called a swastika) for example. Here is what the US Holocaust Memorial Museum has to say about that symbol...
"The swastika has an extensive history. It was used at least 5,000 years before Adolf Hitler designed the Nazi flag. The word swastika comes from the Sanskrit svastika, which means “good fortune” or “well-being." The motif (a hooked cross) appears to have first been used in Neolithic Eurasia, perhaps representing the movement of the sun through the sky. To this day it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Odinism. It is a common sight on temples or houses in India or Indonesia. Swastikas also have an ancient history in Europe, appearing on artifacts from pre-Christian European cultures. "
The rest of the story is here (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007453&gclid=CLfA9a6_07ECFbEBQAodHHIAlA). I see no reason to condemn the symbol or attempt to ban its use just because certain people use that symbol to represent things that go against my moral compass.
And as Casey Kasem used to say, 'Now for the rest of the story'...
It is illegal to display the swastika in Germany in any way, shape, or form because THEY know what it stands for, now. Yes, they know the history, of course they do, but that doesn't change what it stands for NOW, or what the intent of anyone displaying it there now is. Period. Now you know.
Actually an excellent example, Gregg, of how a symbol can be co-opted by a hate group and forever changed in meaning and intent. Would you defend the wearing of a swastika while in Germany? How about a white hood in Mississippi? It's just a hat, right? Do you display a confederate flag?
And why are you defending this? Has Rush weighed in on this? Has condemning this form of hate speech been identified as inherently democrat/liberal, therefore something to be scorned and defended even?
ApatheticNoMore
8-6-12, 4:13pm
I always think of how Wilhelm Reich said the swastika (and other Nazi symbols like the SS runes etc.) was sexual (that the Nazi's relied on repressed sexuality was his thesis). Ack, it's in my head and I can never get out, though it is a bit of a stretch! :) Wilhelm Reich was always great ranting: your f'ed up society, yea you ordinary man, your own pettiness and hate, and what you have made of the world with it!!! I feel that a bit too much lately! And yea I did even see myself in some of his rant and noted it and tried to be better :|.
I was looking at a whole bunch of modern Nazi flags awhile ago (of nazi parties in various countries). Very good looking flags, riffs on the swastika, it's a very powerful graphic (you'd pay a logo designer a ton for it, if it was new), a lot can be done with it by adding more lines etc.. Very basic hypnotic symbol, some of the best looking flags I've ever seen, very dramatic. And you know what ... no matter how artistic, at the end of the day .. they are still fricken NAZIs! That's what they are, period. I kinda see the confederate flag the same way as at least a symbol of great insensitivity if not overt racism. I don't know that anyone is talking about a ban (certainly not me - free speech and all that).
I will continue to assume that those who display the confederate flag are either racist, insensitive or ignorant. And I really do wonder about those who offer a full throated defense of such displays as benign and devoid of racist overtones.
Well at least we've managed to expand the horizon far enough to include some flag wavers that might not be full on racists. Besides, no one here, as far as I've read anyway, was defending the display at all. Several people here defended someone's right TO display a flag if they so choose. Whether such displays are benign or not. Whether the person displaying it is racist, insensitive, ignorant, otherwise disadvantaged or not. That's the tough part about living in a free country, isn't it? You can't limit someone else's freedom to do something you find disagreeable without raising the possibility that someone else will do the same to you. Are you willing to take that risk? I'm not.
And as Casey Kasem used to say, 'Now for the rest of the story'...
Me thinks that was Paul Harvey, peggy. Obviously you're aware that he was one of the first, great voices of conservative radio.
Would you defend the wearing of a swastika while in Germany?
Sure. To be completely accurate I would defend someone's right to wear it if I was German and if that country was a Republic with a constitution like that of the US. You bet I would. It would be silly to do that in the current Germany because that's not how they roll. In the same spirit I would also defend the right to wear or build these...
864865
The first is a Buddhist manji, the second is a US Navy building at Coronado, CA. Good day!
morning girl
8-6-12, 10:53pm
Back to the subject of taxes if there is nothing to hide show us the returns. I lost respect for Ann Romney after the Good Morning America interview when she said "you people know all you need to know" I wasn't going to vote for him anyway but these things confirm my feelings.
Well at least we've managed to expand the horizon far enough to include some flag wavers that might not be full on racists. Besides, no one here, as far as I've read anyway, was defending the display at all. Several people here defended someone's right TO display a flag if they so choose. Whether such displays are benign or not. Whether the person displaying it is racist, insensitive, ignorant, otherwise disadvantaged or not. That's the tough part about living in a free country, isn't it? You can't limit someone else's freedom to do something you find disagreeable without raising the possibility that someone else will do the same to you. Are you willing to take that risk? I'm not.
Ahh, but you were not finding it disagreeable Gregg. You were insisting it could mean so many wonderful things! Don't' try to make this a 'rights' thing cause you know good and well no one is saying ban this flag. We were just trying to inform someone who apparently lives an incredibly sheltered life that no, this flag does not stand for anything wonderful, but only for hate and bigotry, now. It's a shame but there it is.
This is a favorite tactic of the right when someone calls them on bad behaviour. It's like the chick-fil-a thing. People called this guy out on his morally reprehensible attitude and the intolerant right spin it as 'liberals want to deny you free speech and chicken sandwiches, hate god and kick puppies'. It's a diversionary tactic.
Back to the subject of taxes if there is nothing to hide show us the returns. I lost respect for Ann Romney after the Good Morning America interview when she said "you people know all you need to know" I wasn't going to vote for him anyway but these things confirm my feelings.
absolutely! There are several reasons why he should release his taxes for at least 5 or 6 years.
1) it is traditional. All candidates, including his own father, released many years of returns. I think Bob Dole released 30 years and his dad released 12. He really believes he deserves the Presidency and doesn't need to put forth any effort to get it!
2) it's called transparency. You know, that thing tea partiers keep banging on about. In fact, I'll just bet I can find a video of Romney himself taking about transparency in government.
3) Romney doesn't exactly have the best tract record of honesty when it comes to his tax returns. When he ran in 2002 for Governor, the democrats said he wasn't qualified to run in Mass because he didn't meet the residency requirements. He kept insisting he had filed in both Utah and Mass..until he had to admit he had to 'retroactively' file to make that true. RETROACTIVELY! Some keep accusing the Presidents mother of somehow registering his birth in Hawaii from Kenya because she thought he might run for President in 50 years, but this they give a pass! Really? Clearly he is hiding something. I'm wondering if Reed is right. Maybe he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years. he's lied about his taxes before...
4) and this is probably the most important and compelling reason. One of the central themes of his platform is that the wealthy need tax breaks. That the 1% are under such onerous tax burdens we should give them even more breaks. Ok, show us. If the wealthy, and Romney is solidly in there, are under such a strain and burden, then show us your returns. Show us what a burden taxes are to you. Show us how appalling your tax burden is. Show us why you would, on the first day, give yourself and your wealthy friends a huge gift of tax cuts. Justify this position of onerous taxes on the wealthy.
Ahh, but you were not finding it disagreeable Gregg. You were insisting it could mean so many wonderful things! Don't' try to make this a 'rights' thing cause you know good and well no one is saying ban this flag. We were just trying to inform someone who apparently lives an incredibly sheltered life that no, this flag does not stand for anything wonderful, but only for hate and bigotry, now.
Turns out that not even any of my Lynyrd Skynyrd CDs show a confederate flag. I don't fly the stars & bars and don't have a sticker of it on my truck bumper. I've known several people in my life that did. For the most part they were not particularly insensitive or ignorant and didn't strike me as racists. I've certainly run across a few pain in the ass red neck bigots (don't remember if they had the flag, but I didn't tend to hang around them long). For most of the people I'm thinking of it was just a southern pride kind of thing. Anyway, no one said anything about a ban and I never said it was disagreeable. I had the impression that it is disagreeable to rosebud, which is perfectly fine. If she were coming to my house I would take my confederate flag down....except I don't have one. I'd do that out of simple courtesy, not because someone made me. If someone tried to make me it might be a different story, which is my point.
Turns out that not even any of my Lynyrd Skynyrd CDs show a confederate flag. I don't fly the stars & bars and don't have a sticker of it on my truck bumper. I've known several people in my life that did. For the most part they were not particularly insensitive or ignorant and didn't strike me as racists. I've certainly run across a few pain in the ass red neck bigots (don't remember if they had the flag, but I didn't tend to hang around them long). For most of the people I'm thinking of it was just a southern pride kind of thing. Anyway, no one said anything about a ban and I never said it was disagreeable. I had the impression that it is disagreeable to rosebud, which is perfectly fine. If she were coming to my house I would take my confederate flag down....except I don't have one. I'd do that out of simple courtesy, not because someone made me. If someone tried to make me it might be a different story, which is my point.
No, no one would make you, no one is suggesting that, but if someone came to your house and saw this flag, they would assume plenty about you, and no matter what you declared, they would know in their hearts where you stand. We do judge books by their covers, despite the saying.
You know, the funny thing about people we know is, there have been times in the past where I would socialize with people, or have lunch with them and think I know them to be fairly pleasant, nice folks. But then, something happens, like they casually say something incredibly raciest, or nasty or hurtful to someone else, and it just floors me. Being in the military we encountered this more often than I would like. The military is largely republican and largely becoming fundamentalist christian, and folks assume, because you are military, that you 'belong to the club' and will say the most awful things assuming you will agree. You hear an awful lot when people think you are 'one of them'. Horrible raciest, and nasty things about minorities in our country as well as these things about nationals in other countries, while in those countries. It's very eye opening.
*We saw lynyrd Skynyrd before that terrible plane crash. Rock and roll people really need to stay OUT of small planes, helicopters!
No, no one would make you, no one is suggesting that, but if someone came to your house and saw this flag, they would assume plenty about you, and no matter what you declared, they would know in their hearts where you stand. We do judge books by their covers, despite the saying.
Oh I do totally agree that people would judge me based on my display of a confederate flag. Not all of them would reach the same conclusion, but all of them would come to one. Even if they judged me to be a redneck, or even a racist, should I still have the right to display that flag? That is the question that's kind of at the core of this, not whether or not I would be judged. It's ok to talk about rights like this before someone talks about a ban of anything (which we're not here, as you said peggy). If I really dig around there aren't many days when someone isn't publishing/yelling/waving/etc. something I find extremely offensive. Like anyone else I secretly wish there was a way to shut them down, but I know that if there was it would only be a matter of time until something I did was deemed offensive and was removed from view. I'm not crazy about brining up the slippery slope catch phrase, but that really would be one if it got started. I do think the symbol means different things to different people, but I'm not offering any support whatsoever for someone who flies a confederate flag beyond simple first amendment rights.
No, no one would make you, no one is suggesting that, but if someone came to your house and saw this flag, they would assume plenty about you, and no matter what you declared, they would know in their hearts where you stand. We do judge books by their covers, despite the saying.
Maybe I live in an alternate universe cause I truly believe that the only groups who consistently judge others through the lens of racism are skinheads and liberals. Most everyone else operates in the realm of live-and-let-live. I'll be glad when those two groups learn the principle.
Allen you left out conservatives. Is that because you are one. But I would say most conservative would feel the same way. Your own prejudices are showing up.
Free, what you probably don't understand is that conservatives (at least the ones I know) see racial equality as a starting point, not a destination. They believe that if racial tolerance is an expected attitude, rather than an anticipated one, racial harmony will naturally follow.
Division only benefits groups who depend upon it to meet other goals. Over the last several decades it's been the cornerstone, the most illiberal aspect, of modern day liberalism.
ApatheticNoMore
8-7-12, 10:40pm
Maybe I live in an alternate universe cause I truly believe that the only groups who consistently judge others through the lens of racism are skinheads and liberals
yea that does sound like an alternative universe, I don't know that I've met such a liberal and I know plenty (more or less, I'm just going to assume that liberal is being definied broadly). Unless you want to make some argument such as "everyone is a little bit racist", which I would conceed, but people committing "adultery in the heart" so to speak, doesnt' really concern me much (i don't really expect some kind of utter absolute perfection from human beings... just think they can strive to improve ...). Overt stuff is what rankles me, displaying a flag utterly oblivious to what it means to so many, yea that's pretty out there and clueless.
Division only benefits groups who depend upon it to meet other goals.
+1 Alan, absolutely +1. Regardless of who is doing the dividing there really isn't any other logical explanation for promoting such a mentality (IMO).
No, no one would make you [take a confederate flag down] no one is suggesting that...
Except that during my neighborhood's house tour someone DID request that the confederate flag be removed from a house on tour. Seriously, someone complained about it and said that we should demand he take it down. >8) We gave her money back as we always do for someone who is unhappy with the tour.
The article below also portrays the sense of entitlement from a woman named Mary Ratliff who requests that a confederate flag flying hundreds of miles from her home in Columbia, MO, over graves of confederate soldiers, be removed.
http://articles.boston.com/2005-06-04/news/29225066_1_confederate-flag-south-carolina-higginsville
It also reminds me of a controversy in my city a couple of years ago when the new downtown grocery store opened. It was a great thing! A full service grocery store downtown! The store manager hung a cross about 15" high on a wall in the store. Despite the huge popularity of the store there was a flurry of protests from people who were offended or believe that they should be offended or were offended for the sake of others who might be offended.
Today's delicate sensibilities seem to trump common sense and we are all poorer for that.
Maybe I live in an alternate universe cause I truly believe that the only groups who consistently judge others through the lens of racism are skinheads and liberals. Most everyone else operates in the realm of live-and-let-live. I'll be glad when those two groups learn the principle.
The underlying foundation of racism is seeing people as separate groups based on a very limited number of characteristics.
The underlying foundation of racism is seeing people as separate groups based on a very limited number of characteristics.
I would agree in principle, although if the two groups I mentioned didn't self-identify I wouldn't feel inclined to do it for them. Therein lies the difference.
I would agree in principle, although if the two groups I mentioned didn't self-identify I wouldn't feel inclined to do it for them. Therein lies the difference.
If we all used the same checklist for each group, I'd agree. The issue is when someone self-identifies as a member of a group they are using their own checklist as to what that means. And then when someone else uses the label they pull out their own checklist. And the two rarely match.
I'm sure we could find someone to walk through your checklist for yourself and come to the conclusion you're a total bleeding heart liberal based on something in your checklist that doesn't match theirs. And someone who self-identifies as liberal that you would not consider to be.
A lot of live and let live is not presuming what someone means by a label or an action is necessarily what you take that label or action to mean. Like flying confederate flags.
Maybe I live in an alternate universe cause I truly believe that the only groups who consistently judge others through the lens of racism are skinheads and liberals. Most everyone else operates in the realm of live-and-let-live. I'll be glad when those two groups learn the principle.
Well that certainly is an alternate universe! Lordy lordy! Where to begin! Uh, is Fox conservative? How about Rush? How about all those good little Christians who were up in arms about that Muslim community center in NY? How about the daily drumbeat of 'President Obama is a secret Muslim' , and why exactly would that be a problem?
And I believe lower education levels breed racism and prejudice, and as conservatives seem to be against higher learning, sneer at the thought of it even, this would point to several conclusions. But, generally an educated populace is a democratic populace so I get that.
Is the Tea Party conservative? The tea Party who can pretty much trace it's roots back to the John Birch Society! I'm not going to post, yet again, all the tea party signs of Obama with a bone in his nose or dressed as a witch doctor, but you know they are out there. We have all seen them. I guess this makes tea partiers skinheads! Everyone on Fox is a skinhead, or liberal!:0!
Yeah, that's an alternate universe all right!
My new favorite forum feature: http://www.simplelivingforum.net/profile.php?do=ignorelist
ApatheticNoMore
8-8-12, 1:45pm
Endless defenses of the confederate flag (not for a confederate cemetary and not as free speech but above and beyond that) probably tend to land people on one's mental ignore list anyway. I mean really, that's what you want to spend boatloads of time defending. Would you make this argument if you were talking to a minority who felt targeted by those displays? Or would you argue to them that they were all confused if they thought that and we really all just need to get along with the confederate flag? Probably not. Well you know through the beauty and anonymity of the web and all it's lurkers you probably are! :devil: And no I make no assumption what anyone would think in such a situation, just I don't blame anyone for taking offense at that particular symbol, it's not exactly irrational to do so. I'm slightly surprised this thread hasn't been closed already frankly.
It seems the more subtle approach to coercive persuasion practiced by some is a more effective way of getting the message repeated than the ranting and raving of Rush, the Tea Party or the paid assassins at Fox.
I’ll have to admit to being offended by buffoons sporting the Confederate flag. I find twits in Che Guevara t-shirts equally irksome. Those silly COEXIST bumper stickers are annoying in the extreme (Hey you bigots, superior morality on board!). Nazi symbols are disgusting to anyone with half a brain. I detest morons who think they’re making a statement by desecrating the American flag.
But in the end, I have to say I’m even more offended by the wannabe censors out there who think they’ve got the moral authority to decide what is and isn’t acceptable expression. I like to think I know an idiot when I see one, and I don’t need protection for my delicate sensibilities. Whether by law or by self-appointed sensitivity police detecting bigotry in parts per million every time they sniff the air.
Would you make this argument if you were talking to a minority who felt targeted by those displays?
No one defended the confederate flag that I know of. Several people stated that it might mean different things to different people. I think it would be valuable to hear from a minority member who feels targeted by a display of that flag. I am not in that group so my only opportunity to understand more about the experience is to talk with someone who is. Rosebud obviously has strong feelings on the subject. It might be enlightening to know why. Until a conversation like that happens, that flag will be something I know some people feel strongly about for all kinds of reasons, but something I really just don't feel much about at all.
ApatheticNoMore
8-8-12, 2:42pm
I hate Hitler, Stalin, Rebbeca Black, Pol Pot, Jeffery Dahmer, Saddam Hussein, and Ted Bundy
(oh yea those coexist stickers they're just llike SOOOO offensive ... they're like ... like swastikas or something, like pacifist swastikas ... yea that's what they are)
As if it wasn't basically a sticker saying live and let live, I mean that's what the whole coexist thing actually translates to almost directly.
Probably the first time Rececca Black and Pol Pot have shared a sentance. LDAHL finds the coexist bumperstickers annoying. Someone else finds a confederate flag bumpersticker offensive. Yet another will be insulted by a sticker in the shape of a little fish on a bumper. We wouldn't have this problem if we just made all bumperstickers illegal, would we?
I hate Hitler, Stalin, Rebbeca Black, Pol Pot, Jeffery Dahmer, Saddam Hussein, and Ted Bundy
(oh yea those coexist stickers they're just llike SOOOO offensive ... they're like ... like swastikas or something, like pacifist swastikas ... yea that's what they are)
As if it wasn't basically a sticker saying live and let live, I mean that's what the whole coexist thing actually translates to almost directly.
I resent them more as self-righteous affectation than for their editorial content. Being preached to by the rear end of a Prius while I’m trying to get home from work isn’t the way to appeal to the better angels of my nature. Of course, I could be wrong. There may be the occasional skinhead so moved by the sentiment that he tearfully resolves to change his life right there in traffic.
The Angry Man
by Phyllis McGinley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_McGinley)(1905-1978)
The other day I chanced to meet
An angry man upon the street —
A man of wrath, a man of war,
A man who truculently bore
Over his shoulder, like a lance,
A banner labeled “Tolerance.”
And when I asked him why he strode
Thus scowling down the human road,
Scowling, he answered, “I am he
Who champions total liberty —
Intolerance being, ma’am, a state
No tolerant man can tolerate.
“When I meet rogues,” he cried, “who choose
To cherish oppositional views,
Lady, like this, and in this manner,
I lay about me with my banner
Till they cry mercy, ma’am.” His blows
Rained proudly on prospective foes.
Fearful, I turned and left him there
Still muttering, as he thrashed the air,
“Let the Intolerant beware!”
Probably the first time Rececca Black and Pol Pot have shared a sentance. LDAHL finds the coexist bumperstickers annoying. Someone else finds a confederate flag bumpersticker offensive. Yet another will be insulted by a sticker in the shape of a little fish on a bumper. We wouldn't have this problem if we just made all bumperstickers illegal, would we?
I guess I've never seen a coexist bumper sticker. You don't think they might be promoting those co-exist communities where everyone shares garden space and neighborhood chores do you?
Yeah, those Jesus fish stickers always make me want to draw little feet on them.:moon:
ApatheticNoMore
8-8-12, 6:29pm
I guess I've never seen a coexist bumper sticker. You don't think they might be promoting those co-exist communities where everyone shares garden space and neighborhood chores do you?
I'm quite sure they are not, though it would make my day if I start seeing bumper stickers pushing communes or co-housing :). They have a bunch of religious symbols and say coexist. First reaction: easier said that done Second reaction: well ok but I don't think most wars these days have much to do with religious reasons, they are mostly about money (definitely religious elements to the Isreal/Palestinian/occupied territories stuff though). But I have nothing against anyone displaying them or honestly do I have any negative sterotypes about them. I think they old site may have sold them. I have certainly seen coexist stickers well coexisting with "live simply so others may simply live" stickers (on a beat up ratty little car that's a quarter of a century old - oh you know it :)).
Endless defenses of the confederate flag (not for a confederate cemetary and not as free speech but above and beyond that) probably tend to land people on one's mental ignore list anyway. I mean really, that's what you want to spend boatloads of time defending. Would you make this argument if you were talking to a minority who felt targeted by those displays? Or would you argue to them that they were all confused if they thought that and we really all just need to get along with the confederate flag? Probably not. ...
No I'd not argue with them or try to convince them of anything. That's pretty much the point of my argument here, multiple points of view are OK you know.
Unless someone is a guest in my home, my social obligation to mitigate upsetting circumstances is limited or nonexistent. In the public square everyone has the right to feel to feel however they like but it's not my job to sooth their upset.
I guess I've never seen a coexist bumper sticker. You don't think they might be promoting those co-exist communities where everyone shares garden space and neighborhood chores do you?
Yeah, those Jesus fish stickers always make me want to draw little feet on them.:moon:
I saw one tonight, there's more than a few around here. http://www.stickershoppe.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/d201.jpg
I love the graphics of that sticker, but I'm pretty sure the message is a bust.
I saw one tonight, there's more than a few around here. http://www.stickershoppe.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/d201.jpg
Ahh, well there you are! Interesting sticker. Too bad this little group of symbols has been the catalyst for so much death and hatred throughout history.
I do like the graphics too.
Hmmmm. The Star of David, a Christian cross, a crescent moon... Any one of those symbols has been held up to define a rallying point where a group can gather to commence with the slaughter of the innocents (who are usually holding up one of the other symbols). For thousands of years no less. Have more people been killed by someone carrying a cross or wearing a swastika? More deaths in the name of David or Allah? Any one of them pretty much kicks the living **** out of the confederate flag in that regard. Coexist, huh? That goal may be a little lofty for human kind. Give me a bumpersticker that says "survive".
Give me a bumpersticker that says "survive".
Surviving is either done by coexisting or not coexisting, I'd choose the former over the latter. It may be a lofty goal, but many goals are worth striving for even if they aren't fully achievable.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.