Quote:
Originally Posted by asaris
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.
|
I just liked that part. Yes, many states have passed balanced budget amendments... Ohio included. But some states are running on deficit spending.
Quote:
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.)
|
No, I don't think "all" or even the vast majority on either side agrees with what is said on 99.9% of those signs. My point is there were some saying as bad of things about Bush and now those people are calling these signs and the criticisms on Obama offensive and wrong. Just as when W was being criticized and some of these people at the parties were all upset and crying foul when W was being raked over the coals and saying you can't or shouldn't say that about our president.
My point was that if you found them offensive for W, why then are those same signs ok now for a sitting president. And conversely, if they were ok then and you may have even found them funny or used them somehow.
Being offensive to me, means it is offensive on either side. So if you decry it when it is against your man but ok against the other... you are a hypocrite. If it's offensive/ok to you on both sides, then you are consistent and not just giving one side a pass while holding the other side up on a pedestal.
---------- Post added at 12:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
so what you're saying is that political symbols and arguments are totally empty: any argument can be applied to anybody.
so if someone were to criticize the use of a particular symbol or argument in an inappropriate or stupid way, the problem really is that the person who does the criticism doesn't understand the rules, and the first rule is that political symbols and arguments are totally empty.
but you also assume that everyone knows the rules and that they only pretend not to.
so everyone is a hypocrite.
except you, of course.
powerful stuff there, pan.
|
No, I am very much a hypocrite at times. we all are. I just like pointing it out.
---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by YaWhateva
I agree. Pan, you are saying this isn't offensive?
 |
Too me, no. because I don't believe it. It'sa not something I have to agree with or even really pay attention to it. I choose not to pay attention to that sign. He has the right to say it and hold it high, I have the right to ignore it.