Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

asaris · 04-18-2009, 06:50 AM

Pan, two points.

1. By the terms of the federal constitution, states can go into debt. I don't see what in that quote says otherwise. However, many/most states have passed balanced budget amendments to their constitutions, so their own state constitutions (unwisely, IMHO) prohibit it.

2. You assume that all of us 'libruls' found all of the signs criticizing Bush to be non-offensive. This isn't true. But more importantly, it assumes some sort of moral equivalency between Bush's actions and Obama's. Bush (or people in his government) acted in violation of the law, the constitution, and international treaties on several occasions. Obama raised taxes a little, in a country with a lower tax burden than just about any other first world country. There's simply no reason, regardless of ideology, to think Obama's actions are nearly as bad as Bush's.

You also assume that criticizing signs as offensive means that we think those holding the signs have no right to speak. But it's possible to protest and still not be horribly offensive. I glanced over the website you link to, and personally I don't find any of those signs offensive. I've seen pictures of a few that I did find offensive on TV.

(Edit: I looked thru the slideshow, and I did see one of the signs I found offensive -- "The American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's ovens." That's just wrong. Hyperbole is a regular feature of protest signs, and while I often find it humorous, I don't generally find, eg, Obama=Hitler to be offensive. But saying that raising taxes on the rich by 3% is like killing 8 million Jews shows that you simply lack any kind of moral compass whatsoever.)

04-18-2009, 06:50 AM	#341 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Pan, two points. 1. By the terms of the federal constitution, states can go into debt. I don't see what in that quote says otherwise. However, many/most states have passed balanced budget amendments to their constitutions, so their own state constitutions (unwisely, IMHO) prohibit it. 2. You assume that all of us 'libruls' found all of the signs criticizing Bush to be non-offensive. This isn't true. But more importantly, it assumes some sort of moral equivalency between Bush's actions and Obama's. Bush (or people in his government) acted in violation of the law, the constitution, and international treaties on several occasions. Obama raised taxes a little, in a country with a lower tax burden than just about any other first world country. There's simply no reason, regardless of ideology, to think Obama's actions are nearly as bad as Bush's. You also assume that criticizing signs as offensive means that we think those holding the signs have no right to speak. But it's possible to protest and still not be horribly offensive. I glanced over the website you link to, and personally I don't find any of those signs offensive. I've seen pictures of a few that I did find offensive on TV. (Edit: I looked thru the slideshow, and I did see one of the signs I found offensive -- "The American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's ovens." That's just wrong. Hyperbole is a regular feature of protest signs, and while I often find it humorous, I don't generally find, eg, Obama=Hitler to be offensive. But saying that raising taxes on the rich by 3% is like killing 8 million Jews shows that you simply lack any kind of moral compass whatsoever.) __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche Last edited by asaris; 04-18-2009 at 06:57 AM..