Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day! (Page 6)

  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  31  32  33   
Author Topic: Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day!
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.

This is the problem that comes paired with having one of our two parties descend to the state it is in: the other one quickly realizes that stuff like this isn't going to hurt it because the people who would otherwise vote against it have no real choice against it.
Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:


You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.

I was so pleased last week. Still, I am optimistic that indefinite detention is finally on the way out.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
But since we ARE talking about the election....

quote:
Already reeling from a secret video showing him deriding 47 percent of the U.S. electorate, Republican Mitt Romney's campaign hit more trouble on Tuesday when new images surfaced in which he accused Palestinians of not wanting peace.

The videos, taken at the same closed-door fundraiser in Florida in May, have knocked Romney's gaffe-plagued campaign even more off stride and raised fresh questions about whether he can come from behind in the polls and win the White House in November.

"I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there's just no way," Romney said in the latest video clip published by liberal Mother Jones magazine.

Romney's campaign has officially slipped into the realm of reality TV show. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the next episode to see what whackadoodle thing he says next. I'm loving the chances of President Romney brokering a peace deal in the Levant now.
He literally says in those same videos he will punt on the Israel / Palestinian situation.
Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

You know, as far as news that actually matters, this should really be front page news today. This election is bullshit. The stuff no one is talking about is actually a really big deal.

This is the problem that comes paired with having one of our two parties descend to the state it is in: the other one quickly realizes that stuff like this isn't going to hurt it because the people who would otherwise vote against it have no real choice against it.
...So it's really the Republican's fault? I don't know, for me, I think the Obama administration should bear maybe a little of the blame, seeing as how they are the ones actually doing it.

To put it another way, that's quite a Lambertian mind pretzel you've got going on there.

Posts: 10132 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That, if anything, is an objectionable portrait of democrats? That if given the opportunity to incorporate evils it can get away with due to the broken intransigence of the Republicans (and the knowledge that liberals aren't really offered a choice in this election) they'll coast on being merely a lesser evil rather than a principled counterpoint to the administration before it?

And it comes as part of a larger observation about how dangerous a situation is created when you have a two party situation in which one party progressively begins to collapse; when one party is not a valid choice, the other soon finds no need to be.

Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romney calls for more Americans to pay tax and be like Canada [Wink]
quote:
It’s hard to match up the numbers from the Canada Revenue Agency exactly but comparable data found here show that for 2009 tax year, the most recent available, about 33.9 per cent of people who filed tax returns did not pay any federal or provincial taxes, which are typically based on the same income figures used for federal tax. About 17 million people who filed returns paid federal and provincial taxes.

So, the deadbeat 47 per cent that Romney cites would be about 34 per cent in Canada.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/09/19/romneys-47-in-canada-more-like-34/
Posts: 7468 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's something from the full video of that fundraiser:

quote:
about 4 minutes in on tape one, Romney starts to talk about what he refers to as “the Jimmy Carter election”, i.e., 1980. He then goes on to talk about how the hostage crisis and the failed rescue mission Desert One were pervasive issues through the 1980 election. Then at the end he says that “if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.”
This is months before the Libyan / Egyptian protests, remember.

Boy it's a good thing he is such an unambiguous bunghole ~~

Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aros
Member
Member # 4873

 - posted      Profile for Aros           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there a difference between the candidates? This (humorous) mashup seems to suggest not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekQSpbwKkdg&feature=fvwpb&NR=1

Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's a bit unfair don't you think Samprimary? The purpose of campaigning is to win. Exploiting your opponents misfortunes is part of that. Obviously there are limits, but if Obama actually scuffs up on foreign policy it's expected his opponent can use that against them. Unforunately for Romney, he picked the wrong criticism.
Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
That's a bit unfair don't you think Samprimary? The purpose of campaigning is to win.

quote:
This is not just politics as usual but something far lower. By point of comparison, when Ronald Reagan was confronted with the downed-helicopter rescue mission ordered by President Jimmy Carter to save the American hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Iran, he did not see it as opportunity to score political points. Instead, Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." Likewise, George H.W. Bush, then also running for president, said "I unequivocally support the president of the United States -- no ifs, ands or buts -- and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision."
quote:
This time, he went definitively too far -- trying to score petty political points with incomplete information at a time when our nation's embassies were being attacked overseas on the anniversary of September 11.

It was disgraceful.


Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
That's a bit unfair don't you think Samprimary? The purpose of campaigning is to win.

quote:
This is not just politics as usual but something far lower. By point of comparison, when Ronald Reagan was confronted with the downed-helicopter rescue mission ordered by President Jimmy Carter to save the American hostages in the U.S. Embassy in Iran, he did not see it as opportunity to score political points. Instead, Reagan said, "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united." Likewise, George H.W. Bush, then also running for president, said "I unequivocally support the president of the United States -- no ifs, ands or buts -- and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision."
quote:
This time, he went definitively too far -- trying to score petty political points with incomplete information at a time when our nation's embassies were being attacked overseas on the anniversary of September 11.

It was disgraceful.


Ok. So the real problem was, "Too Soon?"

I mean nobody can argue that Reagan did not eventually hammer Carter over the Iran situation. That he gave him some time to lick his wounds first, and get to his feet before continuing the match is admirable, obviously the Romney campaign smelled blood in the water and took a risk, figuring nobody will even remember this when he's president.

Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama hasn't gone there, but you have to know exactly how the GOP would have played it if the situation was reversed and a Democrat attacked a sitting GOP president during that sort of incident.

How DARE they attack America in its hour of need?!

Posts: 21439 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slavim
Member
Member # 12546

 - posted      Profile for Slavim   Email Slavim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Ok. So the real problem was, "Too Soon?"

I mean nobody can argue that Reagan did not eventually hammer Carter over the Iran situation. That he gave him some time to lick his wounds first, and get to his feet before continuing the match is admirable, obviously the Romney campaign smelled blood in the water and took a risk, figuring nobody will even remember this when he's president. [/QB]

It wasn't just the timing, it was more so what he said. He didn't blame Obama for not protecting the embassy or for making foreign policy mistakes. He basically called him a terrorist (or a terrorist sympathizer). That was far beyond crossing a line.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Slavim:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Ok. So the real problem was, "Too Soon?"

I mean nobody can argue that Reagan did not eventually hammer Carter over the Iran situation. That he gave him some time to lick his wounds first, and get to his feet before continuing the match is admirable, obviously the Romney campaign smelled blood in the water and took a risk, figuring nobody will even remember this when he's president.

It wasn't just the timing, it was more so what he said. He didn't blame Obama for not protecting the embassy or for making foreign policy mistakes. He basically called him a terrorist (or a terrorist sympathizer). That was far beyond crossing a line. [/QB]
Not if you honestly believe that the much more important and greater crime is that freedom of expression was being attacked.
Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How exactly was freedom of expression being attacked? Freedom of expression doesn't mean that expression can't be condemned or criticized. Just that it can't be prohibited. No one suggested that the reckless, arrogant, piece of crap film was illegal.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Several people have, in fact, suggested that the creator of the film ought to be arrested. By "several people" I mean several Americans. Pundits and journalists and stuff, not random crazies on the street.

The fact is that there is a not-insubstantial group of people within our country who really do seem okay with curbing freedom of expression so as not to rile up angry violent Muslims. It's a really dumb position to take, for lots of reasons. It's essentially both cowardly appeasement and racist fearmongering, which would be impressive if it weren't so pathetic.

But yeah, freedom of expression doesn't shield you from criticism, I'm 100% in agreement with you there Kate.

I will just add: "Condemn" is a tricky word. If by that you basically just mean "criticize and insult," then I'm still with you. If you mean something stronger than that, then I'm not sure anymore.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those several people were not the people that Gov. Romney was attacking. I am trying to understand how Gov. Romney supposedly thought that President Obama's administration was attacking freedom of expression.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a blow-by-blow of what the Administration knew and when. State knew what Cairo was putting out, and expressed concerns about the language, but the PA chief in Cairo ignored them. The Administration evidently privately expressed frustration to the Cairo office all day without publicly distancing themselves from the statement, even as Cairo repeated it after the embassy was breached (while including a condemnation of the ongoing violence). It wasn't until Romney's public condemnation that the Administration distanced themselves publicly from what they'd felt all along was a poorly worded press release.

I think Romney's biggest mistake was conflating the press release with the Administration out of a desire to push the (fallacious) 'Obama is an apologizer' meme. However, I think the administration can rightly be criticized for not making its concerns over the press release public sooner. I think Romney stretched it pretty far when he tried to hold Obama accountable for the statements of a bull-headed embassy staffer, but I think it's completely valid to say "Hey, this statement was wrong, you knew it was wrong, and your administration should have immediately stood up and said it was wrong."

Posts: 2833 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?

Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?

Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know what state felt was wrong about the press release
quote:
It didn't provide adequate balance. We thought the references to the 9/11 attacks were inappropriate, and we strongly advised against the kind of language that talked about ‘continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.'
I don't think either Cairo's statement of the SoS's statement attacked freedom of expression, but I do think the Cairo press release failed to adequately recognize the fundamental American belief that people have a right to be offensive without being threatened with violence.
Posts: 2833 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Cairo statement was before the attacks. Should the embassy have not tried to calm the situation rather than inflame it?
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is the text of that statement, btw.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The Cairo statement was before the attacks. Should the embassy have not tried to calm the situation rather than inflame it?

The issue isn't that the embassy tried to calm the situation, it's that it did it in a way that is unrepresentative of core American values. It's not just me that feels that way, it's the administration as well. And they felt that way even before the attacks. In this case, I think the administration is right; the statement (even as I agree with its sentiment) did not accurately reflect US values.
Posts: 2833 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What core values? Why do you think it was important for the [i]embassy in Cairo[/i,] given that the task of an embassy is diplomacy, to defend this film. The freedom to make this film was not threatened. When I write that the film was a reckless piece of garbage am I attacking our core values?

And getting back to the point, do you really think that Gov. Romney was trying to defend freedom of speech (which was not threatened by the embassy's statement) or trying to score political points?

Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?

Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?

Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
How do they threaten freedom of speech in this country? How did Gov. Romney's attack make those freedoms safer from angry mobs?
Honestly, BB, I think you are reaching here.

Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?

Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
How do they threaten freedom of speech in this country? How did Gov. Romney's attack make those freedoms safer from angry mobs?
Honestly, BB, I think you are reaching here.

Kate: The embassy grounds are American territory. If you don't make it clear that American laws apply there (including the bill of rights) not the host country's, certainly not mob law, then all of our embassies are at risk.
Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, how did the embassy statement undermine American law? Am I undermining American law by saying that the filmaker's self-important, devious, recklessness produced an offensive piece of garbage? How would defending said piece of garbage have been diplomatic which is what embassies are supposed to be about?
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rasmussen now has Obama 2 points ahead.

Waiting for Ron's landslide any time now...

Posts: 7780 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Again, how did the embassy statement undermine American law? Am I undermining American law by saying that the filmaker's self-important, devious, recklessness produced an offensive piece of garbage? How would defending said piece of garbage have been diplomatic which is what embassies are supposed to be about?

Condemning the film as offensive is only half of the proper response. The other half is defending our country's right to freedom of expression.
Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BladeBlade and Peter -

As Kate said, the statement came out before the embassy was breached. Affirming the American belief in tolerance and acceptance of all religions and peoples is not an undermining of American principles at all, it's a actually a pretty big part of who we claim to be. Religious freedom and freedom of expression often clash messily in America, and there's no one universal way we've deal with it in the past, but I see nothing fundamentally off with the Cairo Embassy's statement as an attempt to blunt outrage, and given what happened, it seems a pretty wise proactive move.

I'm not sure I see the issue here. After the embassy was breached, I'm down with the use of force to suppress the incursion, and with the flowery apologies going away, but before the violence starts, that's when you're supposed to cool tensions.

Posts: 21439 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Again, how did the embassy statement undermine American law? Am I undermining American law by saying that the filmaker's self-important, devious, recklessness produced an offensive piece of garbage? How would defending said piece of garbage have been diplomatic which is what embassies are supposed to be about?

Condemning the film as offensive is only half of the proper response. The other half is defending our country's right to freedom of expression.
You keep saying that and I keep asking defending from what?. Why does our embassy need to have, in that particular moment, defended a right that wasn't in danger? Had the embassy said that the ******* who made the film had no right to make the film, they would have been wrong. But they didn't come anywhere close to saying that.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, not to get caught up on language, but one could infer from the expected protest that inherent in Muslim complaints about the movie, and in specific complaints about it not being banned, Muslim protesters were in fact attacking our level of freedom of expression.

So the Embassy's condemnation of the movie could look more like a nod to the protesters than to upholding our belief in the right to mass produce insulting filth.

On the other hand, I think BB would be better served saying "reaffirming" rather than "defending," but either way, I don't think they were under any obligation to do so. That strikes me as nonsense political double talk.

Posts: 21439 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me try an analogy; I doubt it'll go well (such things seldom seem to), but here goes.

The other day I was in a bar and a woman came in dressed in a revealing halter top and Daisy Duke shorts. One of the women in my group said, "Boy, women really shouldn't dress provocatively like that." Her husband just looked away. Later, some guys start hassling the woman and one of them yanks her top off and pulls off her shorts. My friend says to the group, "Wow, that's awful. They shouldn't be doing that. But she shouldn't have come in here dressed so provocatively, either." Later that night, we found out the woman was raped and murdered in a bar across town.

Now, I wouldn't say my friend's slut-shaming comments were an assault women's freedom to dress how they want, and I certainly think it's silly to call out the husband saying the woman was speaking for both of them. I would however say my friend's statements failed to accurately reflect most people's sense of moral sentiment, and that we should expect better from people (particularly authority figures, like representatives of the US government).

Posts: 2833 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure the analogy translates. It would seem you're boiling it down to blaming the victim, but I fail to see how the embassy statement can be pigeonholed as blaming the victim.

Believing in freedom of expression doesn't mean we have to approve of everything said in its name. If in your analogy the violence that followed her dress is analogous to the violence at the embassy, then you really have to remove it from your analogy, because the initial statements came before the violence. I also don't think the bar works in your analogy, because it's a far different audience.

A better analogy would be, provocatively dressed woman walks into a mosque and sits down. Someone says, "wow, that's really disrespectful and insulting, she shouldn't have done that."

On a side note...what bars are you going to?

Posts: 21439 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Believing in freedom of expression doesn't mean we have to approve of everything said in its name. If in your analogy the violence that followed her dress is analogous to the violence at the embassy, then you really have to remove it from your analogy, because the initial statements came before the violence. I also don't think the bar works in your analogy, because it's a far different audience.

No, the initial statement was released before any violence, as was the initial statement when the woman entered the bar. It was then reiterated after the American embassy in Cairo was breached, with an addendum that violence is also wrong. Later, related violence took the life of ambassador Stevens. I think the sequence holds pretty well.

I also think the bar as context is defensible. These statements were made in the face of a very volatile situation, where it was foreseeable that violence was imminent. But if you want to put it in a church I'm fine with that (I actually considered doing just that originally). I think we would still find my friend's statements lacking, particularly if, say, she were the minister's wife.

As for the bars I go to, I'll plead the fifth.

Posts: 2833 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, what do you think was wrong about either the Cairo statement or the SoS statement later. What about them attacked freedom of expression?

Failed to defend freedom of speech is a probably more accurate charge.
How? Defend from what?
From angry mobs attacking our sovereign territory because they were incensed by an American's film?
How do they threaten freedom of speech in this country? How did Gov. Romney's attack make those freedoms safer from angry mobs?
Honestly, BB, I think you are reaching here.

I think BlackBlade is correct.

Muslims threaten Americans.
The Obama administration threatens freedom of speech via Google.
Google stands up for free speech, *not* the government. If anything, Google had to defend the freedom of speech from Obama.

quote:
On Thursday, the Obama White House called executives at Google, the parent company of YouTube, and "requested" that the company review whether the disgusting anti-Muslim film that has sparked such unrest should be removed on the ground that it violates YouTube's terms of service.

In response, free speech groups such as the ACLU and EFF expressed serious concerns about the White House's actions. While acknowledging that there was nothing legally compulsory about the White House's request (indeed, Google announced the next day they would leave the video up), the civil liberties groups nonetheless noted – correctly – that "it does make us nervous when the government throws its weight behind any requests for censorship", and that "by calling YouTube from the White House, they were sending a message no matter how much they say we don't want them to take it down; when the White House calls and asks you to review it, it sends a message and has a certain chilling effect".

Right-wing commenters loudly decried the White House's actions on free speech grounds. Some of their rhetoric was overblown (the sentiment behind the request was understandable, and they did nothing to compel its removal). But, for reasons made clear by the ACLU and EFF, these conservative objections were largely correct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/16/conservatives-democrats-free-speech-muslims

Note, government "requests" are how China manages the majority of its net censorship.

Posts: 7468 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Believing in freedom of expression doesn't mean we have to approve of everything said in its name. If in your analogy the violence that followed her dress is analogous to the violence at the embassy, then you really have to remove it from your analogy, because the initial statements came before the violence. I also don't think the bar works in your analogy, because it's a far different audience.

No, the initial statement was released before any violence, as was the initial statement when the woman entered the bar. It was then reiterated after the American embassy in Cairo was breached, with an addendum that violence is also wrong. Later, related violence took the life of ambassador Stevens. I think the sequence holds pretty well.

I also think the bar as context is defensible. These statements were made in the face of a very volatile situation, where it was foreseeable that violence was imminent. But if you want to put it in a church I'm fine with that (I actually considered doing just that originally). I think we would still find my friend's statements lacking, particularly if, say, she were the minister's wife.

As for the bars I go to, I'll plead the fifth.

Let me ask you this, does the violence negate the original statement?

See you added a causality twist in there with your analogy that's a bit different, I think, than what actually happened.

1. You condemn a video you think is inciting violence and just plain offensive.

2. Violence happens.

3. You condemn a video you think is inciting violence and just plain offensive. You also condemn the violence.

That's what happened. What you're doing is adding an extra step, that says the violence is justified by the violence. Oh, well, those rapists couldn't help themselves. Oh, well, those protesters couldn't help themselves.

It's neither explicit nor implicit in the embassy statements, neither the initial one nor the subsequent one that any such justification is admitted by the staff. It is in fact possible for the video producer and the violent protesters to both be wrong for different reasons, and it sounds like that's what the second statement is saying. But the violence doesn't get the video off the hook.

Posts: 21439 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The embassy grounds are American territory.

First: While you're talking about the Egyptian embassy, it's worth noting that the site in Libya was a consulate, not an embassy.

Second: AFAIK, that actually isn't true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality

Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't know that :<
Posts: 14163 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The embassy grounds are American territory.

First: While you're talking about the Egyptian embassy, it's worth noting that the site in Libya was a consulate, not an embassy.

Second: AFAIK, that actually isn't true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_mission#Extraterritoriality

There are so few subjects I am uncomfortable being wrong on, and you managed to find one. Though it does say the host country can't enter an embassy and this is also true of consulates without the representing countries permission.

Thanks for correcting that misconception.

Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
As for the bars I go to, I'll plead the fifth.

I see what you did there.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In addition to releasing his full 2011 taxes, Romney will also be releasing a summary of the past 20 years. The data is supposed to be available here although I haven't managed to get through yet.

It's an odd thing to do; maybe he's trying to show that he can listen to and respond to people's concerns. But I think, particularly because it's just summaries and not the full documents, that it's just going to open him up to further attack on the issue from Democrats. FWIW, here are the topline statistics, courtesy of this blog post quoting from this press release:

quote:
In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.


Posts: 2833 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's good enough as far as I'm concerned. The specifics of how he got his percentages to where he did are not secrets, many accountants can describe them.
Posts: 14261 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not odd at all. He's trying to disprove some of the negatives without opening himself up to any actual scrutiny, because many tax experts have openly said they honestly can't figure out a lot of his tax issues, and that his returns are incredibly dense, complex, and riddled with question marks.

Releasing a summary shows people he actually paid taxes, that was the big point. Now he hopes the issue goes away without people digging through the details.

It's not good enough for me, but I don't expect any more.

Posts: 21439 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, it won't be going away any time soon.

His 2011 returns reveal he paid a 14.1% tax rate. Still lower than most, but higher than expected. And I'm sure he hopes this would shut everyone up.

Except he picked that number by choice. Had he taken the deductions on charitable donations he was permitted, his rate would have been 9%. His campaign came right out and said he overpaid to meet the commitments he made to have a rate over 14%.

The part that I'm sure he's hating is the immediate resurgence of his quote from a January debate:
quote:
I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.
And in July he told ABC news that anyone overpaying their taxes wasn't "qualified" to be president.

The news he was hoping for? "Romney releases tax returns, nothing shocking found." The news you'll hear all weekend? "Romney disqualifies himself from the race."

Posts: 7780 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Campaign statement:

quote:
He has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13%. In order to be consistent with that statement, the Romneys limited their deduction of charitable contributions.
I'll be honest, I don't remember his explicit wording. Probably a good idea to check on it....
Posts: 3608 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And yet the 47% who aren't legally required to pay income taxes are freeloaders.

Man, you really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to make sense of his beliefs regarding taxes.

Posts: 21439 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  ...  31  32  33   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2