The Party of Tolerance (unless you are different)

[redsox39]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101101465_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101101465_pf.html)

Candidate Banners Can Leave Clients, Businesses Bruised


By Avis Thomas-Lester
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 12, 2008; C01

The sign went up Sunday evening, bold black letters against the stark white background of the marquee at the Colony South Hotel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Colony+South+Hotel?tid=informline) & Conference Center in Clinton: "Country First. McCain/Palin."
By daybreak, pandemonium had broken loose all across heavily Democratic Prince George's County (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Prince+George's+County?tid=informline). Many local supporters of Democrat Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline), jolted by the message as they headed down Branch Avenue on their Monday morning commutes, grabbed cellphones and BlackBerrys (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/BlackBerry+Mobile+Devices?tid=informline) to notify friends. Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships. The NAACP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/NAACP?tid=informline) logged calls. Community leaders demanded boycotts of the hotel, a common venue for Democratic events.
"Businesspeople have to be mindful of the sentiments and sensibilities of their market trading area, and Prince George's County is overwhelmingly for Obama," said community activist Arthur Turner (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Arthur+Turner?tid=informline) of Kettering, who was among those advocating a boycott. "People I have talked to look at the sign as a slap in the face. They feel it was blatant disrespect. . . . I have heard people say they will no longer patronize Colony South because of that disrespect."
The outcry over the hotel marquee tapped into the passion -- and sometimes anger -- that has characterized this fall's presidential campaign. Supporters of Republican candidate John McCain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McCain?tid=informline) have vented their rage at rallies this week, applauding thunderously as McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Sarah+Palin?tid=informline), accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists."
Prince George's, though, is clearly Obama Country. As the nation's wealthiest mostly black community, where about 77 percent of registered voters are Democrats, residents have Obama placards in their yards, bumper stickers on their cars and the candidate's visage on their T-shirts.
The marquee supporting the GOP (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Republican+Party?tid=informline) ticket in "an area that is strongly African American was like putting a stink bomb in the middle of the living room," said University of Maryland (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/University+of+Maryland?tid=informline) political Professor Ron Walters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ron+Walters?tid=informline). "What it does show is the emotions that are around this campaign and this election."
Colony South General Manager Alan Vahabzadeh said that the hotel, one of several Washington area businesses that has dared to venture into the political thicket, got the message after about 100 phone calls and three dozen e-mails. The sign came down Wednesday afternoon.
"I didn't even realize it was going to be like this," he said in an interview. The last thing "we want to do is lose business," he added.
But Friday afternoon, motorists noticed new signs -- broad banners attached to wooden stakes in the hotel's front yard -- again touting the Republicans.
Vahabzadeh did not return later calls seeking comment, but an employee said the phones were again ringing with complaints.
And Democratic activists started talking boycott. That could mean canceling political events at the hotel and urging residents to skip its Wednesday night karaoke events and Sunday brunches.
"While a business has the right to display what it chooses, the public has a right to show its contempt for that decision, including boycotting," said Mel Franklin, president of the Greater Marlboro Democratic Club.
Other business owners who have gotten into the political game have drawn less grief. At the Big Bad Woof pet store in liberal Takoma Park, bumper stickers urging people to "Vote for Bark Obama 2008" are available for sale. No such items were available for "John McCanine."
At B. Smith's restaurant in Union Station (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Union+Station?tid=informline) recently, a waiter sported an Obama campaign button. At the Old Town Trading Post in Alexandria, which sells hemp necklaces, African figurines and incense, among other novelties, an array of McCain T-shirts and a bumper sticker that reads "Friends don't let friends vote Democrat" are available for sale. A giant sign at Parson's Farm nursery in Prince William County (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Prince+William+County?tid=informline) proclaims the area "McCain Country."
Richard D'Amico, a stylist at Axis, a hair salon on Connecticut Avenue NW, has declared his work area a "Sarah Palin-Free Zone" by posting on his mirror a photo he cut out of a magazine marked with a red circle and a slash across it. The salon has Obama bags in the window. None of the clients has protested or demanded equal time for McCain, he said.
"It was such a topic of conversation -- everybody wants to talk about Sarah Palin. Even my clients stop me on the street and say, 'How about that Sarah Palin?' " said D'Amico, an Obama supporter. "So I decided I had to put a sign up."
The political partisanship, residents said, is their right as Americans.
Some Prince George's Democrats acknowledge as much.
"This is a highly charged election where the stakes are extremely high and emotions are running high on all fronts," said Orlan Johnson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Orlan+Johnson?tid=informline), a lawyer who lives in Bowie and is on Obama's national finance team. "But it is difficult for me to believe that individuals shouldn't continue to have the opportunity to exercise their right to free speech. It would be un-American to not allow that to happen."


More....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101101465_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/11/AR2008101101465_pf.html)

[redsox39]

Now, I say we boycott all things that promote Obama...but that would be racist...and I would never get to see a movie again...

I just don't understand why a people feel "insulted" because someone in their neighborhood has a, SHOCKING, different opinion than the majority!

Why don't we just burn a cross in the Front yard too, just to make sure that "Uppity GOP Member" gets the point!

[Willam]

This is the type of "passion" and hypocrisy that kills me. And I believe it's both parties, not just the Dems.

"Post any sign you want (as long as I agree with it)."

What a great way to have an open and fair dialouge between opposing views.





Dumb Bastards

[Tar Heel]

I think the liberals on the far left tend to be worse because they like to sit on their high horse of tolerance, while simultaniously being intolerant to anyone who disagrees. At least Right wing Conservatives will tell you straight up what they are intolerant of.

[Morfin]

I disagree. Everyone has the right to post the sign (no one is contesting that here). Everyone has the right to patronize or not patronize any business. Note that part of the "outrage" was because this hotel had been a "common venue" for Democratic events.

If I were a Democrat and had given this hotel my business, and now its ownership was advocating Republican candidates, I might take my business elsewhere -- if that was important to me. Why a business would do something like this -- especially given that they derive business from Democratic clients -- is beyond me. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

[Tar Heel]

Oh they have the right to do that, but it's the complete unawareness of some dems of their own intolerance that kills me.

[The Batman]

Now, I say we boycott all things that promote Obama...but that would be racist...and I would never get to see a movie again...

I just don't understand why a people feel "insulted" because someone in their neighborhood has a, SHOCKING, different opinion than the majority!

Why don't we just burn a cross in the Front yard too, just to make sure that "Uppity GOP Member" gets the point!

I agree that people shouldn't feel insulted because of a different opinion, but the sign "Country First. McCain/Palin." is just a jab at anyone who isn't republican, saying that they aren't true americans and blah blah blah. Democrats however do the same thing all the time, by always undermining the intelligence the Republicans have by making unnecessary remarks. But, Country First isn't an opinion, its just a way of making the other guy sound less american.

[Desperado]

If I were a Democrat and had given this hotel my business, and now its ownership was advocating Republican candidates, I might take my business elsewhere -- if that was important to me. Why a business would do something like this -- especially given that they derive business from Democratic clients -- is beyond me. Why bite the hand that feeds you?


The same reason you name your baby john mccain palin and try to hide it from your wife... Stupidity.

[Willam]

And "Change" isn't a jab at Republicans?

They're both just slogans. Not insults.

[Desperado]

And "Change" isn't a jab at Republicans?

They're both just slogans. Not insults.

Actually "Change" is a jab at Republicans, a change from a failed 8 year Republican administration.

[Morfin]

Actually "Change" is a jab at Republicans, a change from a failed 8 year Republican administration.

"I am not George Bush. If you wanted to run against him, you should have done that in 2004."

Lamest line from last night's debate (next to all the Joe the Plumber crap)

[redsox39]

"I am not George Bush. If you wanted to run against him, you should have done that in 2004."

Lamest line from last night's debate (next to all the Joe the Plumber crap)

I don't know...I chuckled a bit at that one. I would have brought it up about 10 more times if I were McCain. Obama rarely said anything about McCain or his record. He did, however, mention Bush, not always by name, about 100 times.

It did sound like he was debating Bush, and Not McCain. Then again, with Obama being the Messiah, maybe he WAS doing both, and providing us with our first miracle.

[redsox39]

I disagree. Everyone has the right to post the sign (no one is contesting that here). Everyone has the right to patronize or not patronize any business. Note that part of the "outrage" was because this hotel had been a "common venue" for Democratic events.

If I were a Democrat and had given this hotel my business, and now its ownership was advocating Republican candidates, I might take my business elsewhere -- if that was important to me. Why a business would do something like this -- especially given that they derive business from Democratic clients -- is beyond me. Why bite the hand that feeds you?

So if you spend money with me, I have to support all of your beliefs? That sound like the exact problem in Washington. That is retarded. So any business that supports Obama, I can go in front of the store, hold angry protests and scare business away? Just because you gave me a donation (or spent money in my business), that shouldn't mean I have to bend to your every whim. And if you want to punish my business and my family because of the political candidate I support, you are a shallow asshole who needs to re-evaluate his life. And maybe YOU are the problem with America.

Sometimes you are so intolerant, it is embarassing.

[heelsguy]

I think the liberals on the far left tend to be worse because they like to sit on their high horse of tolerance, while simultaniously being intolerant to anyone who disagrees. At least Right wing Conservatives will tell you straight up what they are intolerant of.

exactly. EXACTLY!

that has always been my biggest beef with the far left: they ridicule the far right for being intolerant..and in so doing so THEY themselves are being intolerant. But they figure "that's ok...we're the ENLIGHTENED ONES..so we can do that!"

[Desperado]

And maybe YOU are the problem with America.

Isnt this whats great about America? You have the ability to make a personal choice not to spend your money at some place that may support Muslims or Nazis(extremes)? If someone decides they dont want their money possibly going to some organization they do not support, whats wrong with them making a choice to shop some where else? The only reason they could possibly know if it was, would be if the business advertised their support whatever organization/campaign/political party.

[Morfin]

So if you spend money with me, I have to support all of your beliefs? That sound like the exact problem in Washington. That is retarded. So any business that supports Obama, I can go in front of the store, hold angry protests and scare business away? Just because you gave me a donation (or spent money in my business), that shouldn't mean I have to bend to your every whim. And if you want to punish my business and my family because of the political candidate I support, you are a shallow asshole who needs to re-evaluate his life. And maybe YOU are the problem with America.

Sometimes you are so intolerant, it is embarassing.

I am not intolerant. I am saying that you have every right to boycott a business with Obama signs and to protest in front of that business.

I'm a lawyer from the Detroit area, so I'll use a car example. If Ford hired me to represent them, I would likely buy a Ford car. And if the UAW hired me, I probably wouldn't go to meetings in a Honda or other foreign, non-union-made car. No one is forcing you to "support of all [their] beliefs." You have the choice to support them or not, with the understanding that some people may make choices based on that. Like it or not, that is the real world.

I am not saying that I would choose to not patronize a business because of political beliefs or religious beliefs or whatever, because to me, I don't give a crap what their believes are, I am only concerned about whether their product or service is the best, most economical to me.

[redsox39]

Isnt this whats great about America? You have the ability to make a personal choice not to spend your money at some place that may support Muslims or Nazis(extremes)? If someone decides they dont want their money possibly going to some organization they do not support, whats wrong with them making a choice to shop some where else? The only reason they could possibly know if it was, would be if the business advertised their support whatever organization/campaign/political party.

I agree with you. You don't have to shop there, Free Market rules. However, the protests and organized boycotts are just plain hatred at that point. Its Bad if Bill O'Rielly does it, and it is just as bad when Bob Ross, (who apparently is NOT a happy painter), does it. And then to be such a sensitive pussy that someone supporting a different candidate is within "x" ammount of miles of your house! My GOD! The injustice in this world. Maybe we can have a Housing commitee too get rid of all the, umm, less desirables in our neighborhood. You know, John McCain supporters. We won't rent to them, or even let them drink from our water fountains! That'll show em!


It is hatred, plain and simple. Based upon what people believe! If this isn't the most ironic thing to happen during this election, I don't know what is...

[Tar Heel]

exactly. EXACTLY!

that has always been my biggest beef with the far left: they ridicule the far right for being intolerant..and in so doing so THEY themselves are being intolerant. But they figure "that's ok...we're the ENLIGHTENED ONES..so we can do that!"

There is a fine line between promoting tolorance and pushing tolorance in your face.

[Desperado]

It is hatred, plain and simple. Based upon what people believe! If this isn't the most ironic thing to happen during this election, I don't know what is...


I agree, however this is going both ways, listening to the some of the Hate speech at mccain/palin rallys, that shit is out of control.

[DjAg]

I think the problem is more that a business was advertising their political beliefs rather than keeping such political propaganda associated only to the individual(s). To me, it's similar to how my old high school allowed advertisements to go up about a Christian prayer group that were allowed to be 10 minutes late to their first class and allowed to leave 10 minutes early from their last class to pray... The Muslim prayer group was also allowed time in the school day to pray, but were not allowed to advertise that their group existed. It's as if my high school had endorsed one religion, but not the other, doing the bare minimum to not get negative publicity.

Or, in a simpler example, I see it similar to their being a separation of church and state, there also should be a separation of state and business, and of business and individual. Your business should not have any political ties in any way, should service all people without discrimination, and therefore you should not advertise the positions of the individuals working within the business, as the business itself should not hold it's own political stances in the eyes of their clients/customers. The business should be allowed to hold political debates/rallies, but only under the understanding that they are remaining effectively neutral, not favoring one thing or another as a business.

Putting it in front of your house in your lawn would probably draw some disgust from those ignorant enough to have a belittling, intolerant mindset, but would not draw nearly as much attention.

[redsox39]

I think the problem is more that a business was advertising their political beliefs rather than keeping such political propaganda associated only to the individual(s). To me, it's similar to how my old high school allowed advertisements to go up about a Christian prayer group that were allowed to be 10 minutes late to their first class and allowed to leave 10 minutes early from their last class to pray... The Muslim prayer group was also allowed time in the school day to pray, but were not allowed to advertise that their group existed. It's as if my high school had endorsed one religion, but not the other, doing the bare minimum to not get negative publicity.

Or, in a simpler example, I see it similar to their being a separation of church and state, there also should be a separation of state and business, and of business and individual. Your business should not have any political ties in any way, should service all people without discrimination, and therefore you should not advertise the positions of the individuals working within the business, as the business itself should not hold it's own political stances in the eyes of their clients/customers. The business should be allowed to hold political debates/rallies, but only under the understanding that they are remaining effectively neutral, not favoring one thing or another as a business.

Putting it in front of your house in your lawn would probably draw some disgust from those ignorant enough to have a belittling, intolerant mindset, but would not draw nearly as much attention.

That is ridiculous.

Well, then I guess Obama will have to give back all those Millions of Dollars from certain business's.

Because giving someone Thousands of $$$$ means they support them to me.

This is just another awesome point to prove that the "Bible Thumpers" and the "Far Left" are the same fucking people.

Its ok when we do it because we are right.

[Tar Heel]

If I put a big MccCain Palin sign outside of my place of business in Chapel Hill (largely Democratic), I would expect to lose business. It might not be right, but that's how it goes. Use some sense. You are running a business. There are all kinds of things you can do that will affect your profit margin. This is one of them.

[Willam]

This is just another awesome point to prove that the "Bible Thumpers" and the "Far Left" are the same fucking people.

Its ok when we do it because we are right.


Couldn't have said it better myself!

[Archangel]

Tarheel's totally right on this one. Thinking that black people are subhuman because you are a racist is intolerant and retarded, but at least honest.

Thinking that someone is subhuman because he doesn't tolerate everyone else or subscribes to your notion that one should might be derived from a noble idea, but is just as bigoted, and even worse, hypocritical.

[DjAg]

That is ridiculous.

Well, then I guess Obama will have to give back all those Millions of Dollars from certain business's.

Because giving someone Thousands of $$$$ means they support them to me.

This is just another awesome point to prove that the "Bible Thumpers" and the "Far Left" are the same fucking people.

Its ok when we do it because we are right.

I think you misunderstood because I did not explain very well.

If the person who owns a business wishes to support that candidate with the money earned from that business, fine. If that business is going to be putting signs around about how much they support one candidate and not the other, then I would interpret that as trolling rather than just "support".

Edit:: Again I return to my high school, it was alright for a teacher to state what religion they were or who they supported, but they could never alter the way they taught based on those aspects of themselves. If those teachers were to put up posters or wear a button or something that pushed their religious or political views, it could easily be viewed as them pushing those views rather than simply having them, hence potentially causing issues rather than simply "existing".

[redsox39]

If I put a big MccCain Palin sign outside of my place of business in Chapel Hill (largely Democratic), I would expect to lose business. It might not be right, but that's how it goes. Use some sense. You are running a business. There are all kinds of things you can do that will affect your profit margin. This is one of them.

Agreed. that will happen. But to have a neighborhood protest, even after you have extended the Olive branch by having an Obama rallies, just shows that one side of this debate is tolerant of the opponent, while one side is bitter and venom filled haters.

I have been saying that for years. The Democrats are the Party of Hate. They exploit Divisiveness, prey on the weak, promote hated and somehow get to walk around with a "shit-don't stink" attitude about how they are tolerant. There is no way a Democrat can bring together the country that has been slowly and methodically divided along party lines since LBJ . Nor would they want it to be. As long as there are 2 groups, there will always be animosity and apathy to feed off of. Which are the 2 things the Democratic party has been feasting on for years.

[Archangel]

It's the quintessential conundrum of the left, isn't it?


It's why, despite him having been one of the worst monsters to ever walk this earth, I have some respect for Hitler. Everything he wrote in 1925, he acted upon starting 1933. It's hardly his fault that people didn't believe he would. Fascists are open about their hatred and intolerance.
The communists? Yeah, Brezhnev drove a Rolls-Royce, Mao lived in total luxury, and Kim Jong Il doesn't exactly strike me as a pauper, either. And this from a movement that was based on dumb broke people envying dumb rich people.

[redsox39]

I think you misunderstood because I did not explain very well.

If the person who owns a business wishes to support that candidate with the money earned from that business, fine. If that business is going to be putting signs around about how much they support one candidate and not the other, then I would interpret that as trolling rather than just "support".

Edit:: Again I return to my high school, it was alright for a teacher to state what religion they were or who they supported, but they could never alter the way they taught based on those aspects of themselves. If those teachers were to put up posters or wear a button or something that pushed their religious or political views, it could easily be viewed as them pushing those views rather than simply having them, hence potentially causing issues rather than simply "existing".


So in your opinion:

Giving 1 million dollars is showing less support than putting up a wooden sign! Putting up a wooden sign is trolling for votes, which is WAY worse than paying for them!

Well, shit, why do they even have these fundraisers? They could save a ton of time and money by just handing out those signs!

what that guy should have done, is:

1. Not let those people hold rallies in his business
2. not put up any signs (because he supports Satan)
3. Give all his money to McCain to show how much he doesn't support him.

[Archangel]

Agreed. that will happen. But to have a neighborhood protest, even after you have extended the Olive branch by having an Obama rallies, just shows that one side of this debate is tolerant of the opponent, while one side is bitter and venom filled haters.


This made me laugh. Republicans: Champions of tolerance, indeed. "I don't want no n****r/Ay-rab/terr'st in the White House!"


I have been saying that for years. The Democrats are the Party of Hate. They exploit Divisiveness, prey on the weak, promote hated and somehow get to walk around with a "shit-don't stink" attitude about how they are tolerant. There is no way a Democrat can bring together the country that has been slowly and methodically divided along party lines since LBJ . Nor would they want it to be. As long as there are 2 groups, there will always be animosity and apathy to feed off of. Which are the 2 things the Democratic party has been feasting on for years.

Yeah, maybe, but I can understand the liberal coastal élites looking down on the rednecks. The rednecks looking down on any multi-cellular organism, not so much.

McCain strategists are the ones openly talking about fostering fear and insecurity to further divide voters. As if there were any need: From what I see, the USA isn't divided along the lines of anything as ephemeral as a party - it's an epistemical/paradigmatical divide as deep as the one between Muslims and the West.

[redsox39]

Are you kidding me? Really?

Just 7 years after 9/11, the Front Runner for America's president is a Black man named Barak Hussien Obama. I would have to say, as a nation, we are doing pretty good on the "tolerance" level as far as race goes.

Thanks for playing, but I am sure for every old guy talking about no "N*****S" in the White house, I can find another person going "FUCK YEAH! My N***A in the White house!".

Let's focus on the real base for each group. And I promise you that my mom's church lady circle is the kind that goes and works at shelters and takes in people of all colors and puts them on their feet. The Racist right is no different than the racist Left, and neither one make up the majority of the party, so let's quit trying to label the party based on that Old guy they keep sitcking in front of the camera at Palin Rallies...

[DjAg]

So in your opinion:

Giving 1 million dollars is showing less support than putting up a wooden sign! Putting up a wooden sign is trolling for votes, which is WAY worse than paying for them!

Well, shit, why do they even have these fundraisers? They could save a ton of time and money by just handing out those signs!

what that guy should have done, is:

1. Not let those people hold rallies in his business
2. not put up any signs (because he supports Satan)
3. Give all his money to McCain to show how much he doesn't support him.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying... If you wish to completely misinterpret and distort it to such an extreme that I feel I can mold a better interpretation of my opinion out of a steaming pile of Paris Hilton's cum-infested shit, that is.

I believe in propositional logic we referred to that sort of a fallacious argument as "straw man". Nice work, but next time try to argue against my argument, rather than blowing it way out of proportion first.

[redsox39]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying... If you wish to completely misinterpret and distort it to such an extreme that I feel I can mold a better interpretation of my opinion out of a steaming pile of Paris Hilton's cum-infested shit, that is.

I believe in propositional logic we referred to that sort of a fallacious argument as "straw man". Nice work, but next time try to argue against my argument, rather than blowing it way out of proportion first.

What did I blow out of proportion?

That you said Putting up a sign in front of your business shows more support than giving money? Pretty sure, that is what you said.

And that people that put up signs should expect the venom that comes their way.

Sorry if they aren't ashamed of their candidate. Better hold a protest, I disagree with the majority of people in this room. Guess I am just trolling.

PS- there MIGHT be sarcasam in there again. be careful, you never can tell!

[Mr. Brown]

Yeah I actually got a call from a friend about this (I live in PG county) and I was like ok so? I don't like this tactic of I'm going to boycott b/c you have a different viewpoint than me. If your doing something that I'm against that's a different thing. I most of the posters here who are pro McCain I have no problem with. They most times articulate their positions to the extent that I know where they are coming from, but I just don't agree. I'm not going to never engage them in conversation, or leave the site which is what kind of knee jerk reaction that many one both side do.

[DjAg]

What did I blow out of proportion?

That you said Putting up a sign in front of your business shows more support than giving money? Pretty sure, that is what you said.

And that people that put up signs should expect the venom that comes their way.

Sorry if they aren't ashamed of their candidate. Better hold a protest, I disagree with the majority of people in this room. Guess I am just trolling.

All I said was that advertising your political stances in a business environment could easily be seen as de-neutralizing your business. Instead of being a business that is accepting of differences and serves all customers equally, it shows that "we support X", which in turn can easily be read as "we do not support Y". So, they do not support my political stances? That is not very professional of the business, and I would argue that it was/is/will be a horrible idea to conduct business in a self-inflicted, potentially distraught environment.

It's just not classy, and has no place being thrown in the face of potential clients/customers. Keep it at home, or quietly on the sidelines, where it would likely do more good for your cause anyways, and pose less of a threat to your business.

[Archangel]

Your parties mean way too much to you people. If a butcher shop put up SPD (social democrats, centre left) posters during a campaign, CDU (Christian democrats, centre right) voters would still shop there.

[Stax]

Your parties mean way too much to you people. If a butcher shop put up SPD (social democrats, centre left) posters during a campaign, CDU (Christian democrats, centre right) voters would still shop there.

Europe has the advantage of more ideologically united parties. Rather than just two broad ideas you can have more accurate representation of your beliefs. If you think about it, there are economic, social, and foreign policy conservatives and liberals and you can find representatives in the US of almost ANY combination of values (Socially liberal, economically and foreign conservative? Giuliani. Socially and foreign policy conservative, economically liberal? Lieberman.) yet they are pulled into 2 parties.

[Archangel]

Yeah, but the two party thing system is stupid. They either radicalise, leaving no middle ground, or pander to the same middle ground, losing their identity.

[Stax]

Yeah, but the two party thing system is stupid. They either radicalise, leaving no middle ground, or pander to the same middle ground, losing their identity.

I completely agree. But many structures in the government, from it's founding, promote such a system (requiring a MAJORITY of electoral votes to win the presidency, eg).

[Tar Heel]

Are you kidding me? Really?

Just 7 years after 9/11, the Front Runner for America's president is a Black man named Barak Hussien Obama. I would have to say, as a nation, we are doing pretty good on the "tolerance" level as far as race goes.

Thanks for playing, but I am sure for every old guy talking about no "N*****S" in the White house, I can find another person going "FUCK YEAH! My N***A in the White house!".

Let's focus on the real base for each group. And I promise you that my mom's church lady circle is the kind that goes and works at shelters and takes in people of all colors and puts them on their feet. The Racist right is no different than the racist Left, and neither one make up the majority of the party, so let's quit trying to label the party based on that Old guy they keep sitcking in front of the camera at Palin Rallies...

Let's not go overboard. The republicans would never put up a black guy named Barack Heusain Obama, no matter what he stood for. I don't think either part gets to claim the party of tolerance. Just like neither party gets to claim they are the party of god.

[redsox39]

All I said was that advertising your political stances in a business environment could easily be seen as de-neutralizing your business. Instead of being a business that is accepting of differences and serves all customers equally, it shows that "we support X", which in turn can easily be read as "we do not support Y". So, they do not support my political stances? That is not very professional of the business, and I would argue that it was/is/will be a horrible idea to conduct business in a self-inflicted, potentially distraught environment.

It's just not classy, and has no place being thrown in the face of potential clients/customers. Keep it at home, or quietly on the sidelines, where it would likely do more good for your cause anyways, and pose less of a threat to your business.

There are exceptions though. what if that guy makes more than $250,000 and doesn't want his taxes to raise? I mean, there are personal interests locked in with your business. It is called "Private enterprise" because it is owned by a person, or people who have opinions and right to speak them. just like you have a right to not shop there. But to blatantly try to ruin a business (Organized Protest, boycott) because of personal desision to support a candidate and use YOUR property to display your choice, is just petty.

Your parties mean way too much to you people. If a butcher shop put up SPD (social democrats, centre left) posters during a campaign, CDU (Christian democrats, centre right) voters would still shop there.

I agree, it is what is more convienenient to you. Wal-Mart is hated across the board...everyone still goes there. However, if there were an angry mob of protesters in front on the building, I wouldn't want my kids, or mom, or wife going there.

Europe has the advantage of more ideologically united parties. Rather than just two broad ideas you can have more accurate representation of your beliefs. If you think about it, there are economic, social, and foreign policy conservatives and liberals and you can find representatives in the US of almost ANY combination of values (Socially liberal, economically and foreign conservative? Giuliani. Socially and foreign policy conservative, economically liberal? Lieberman.) yet they are pulled into 2 parties.

Which is why 3rd parties are having a groundswell of support...but apparently we are to lazy, and want to be on a winning team. Because by the time the election is over, No one will remember Bob Barr or Ron Paul until the next election is almost on top of us again, and they will never get enough long term support to win anything.

I completely agree. But many structures in the government, from it's founding, promote such a system (requiring a MAJORITY of electoral votes to win the presidency, eg).

And this is why Democracys always have a life span. Once people get to deep into them, figure out how they work, and that they can vote themselves "gifts" basically, it is over.

Check this:
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'

'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.'

'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every
democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'

'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following
sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;

2. from spiritual faith to great courage;




3. from courage to liberty;

4. from liberty to abundance;

5. from abundance to complacency;



6. from complacency to apathy;

7. from apathy to dependence;

8. from dependence back into bondage'


Keep on cycling... until the Next "Rome" or USA pops up...

[Archangel]

That's basically regurgitating Plato's five regime theory from The Republic...


But then again, most political theory is annotations to ol' P.

[Tar Heel]

Your parties mean way too much to you people. If a butcher shop put up SPD (social democrats, centre left) posters during a campaign, CDU (Christian democrats, centre right) voters would still shop there.

exactly. What happens is a team mentality is created. People vote for their party like they root for their favotite ball team. I was watching the debate lastnight with a bunch of people that have no idea whats going on. One girl straight up said she votes republican because her parents do, another was voting for obama because she likes the way he talks and his looks. One dude started spouting off Rush quotes that he heard on the radio... and the whole time I'm thinking, "Which one of these fucking morons actually thinks for themselves?" None of them. I'd say about 5% of voters look at each candidate objectively before voting. The other 95% vote like their parents or beleive what they hear on liberal or right wing talk radio. It really blows my fucking mind how sheeplike american voters are. No person is 100% Republican or Democrat.

[Morfin]

Yeah, but the two party thing system is stupid. They either radicalise, leaving no middle ground, or pander to the same middle ground, losing their identity.

I completely agree. But many structures in the government, from it's founding, promote such a system (requiring a MAJORITY of electoral votes to win the presidency, eg).

I disagree. Thread-worthy? Maybe. But I won't burden this thread.

[Soup Nazi]

Did you get that from an email forward? Because their structure is always strikingly similar. (Not that I am striking it down, I just am noticing a pattern).

As for the issue, its a stupid fucking idea and it was a stupid hotelier who decided to take the small amount of advertising revenue in exchange for a well-foreseen boycott. If I was running a hotel in Wasilla, Alaska I highly doubt I would get a different reaction if I put up a "Change - Obama/Biden 08" banner. There would be a boycott, with some people yelling terrorist/arab/etc.

The only difference is (as has been stated before), Democrats claim to be the more tolerant party, (though in my dealings with the far-left, most do not claim to be very tolerant, and I should know, I group up in possibly the most liberal town in the US) whereas the Repubs which would boycott in Alaska would make no such claim.

[redsox39]

Let's not go overboard. The republicans would never put up a black guy named Barack Heusain Obama, no matter what he stood for. I don't think either part gets to claim the party of tolerance. Just like neither party gets to claim they are the party of god.

I disagree. Until Obama wins, there are very few high democratic postions being held by Blacks.

Condi Rice
Collin Powell
Clarence Thomas
Mr. Watts

Pretty much, republicans WILL put in people who say and do the right things, regardless of race and the stigma of being racists that you keep perpetrating.

On the other hand, Democrats expect Black people to vote 90% Democratic everytime and then shut up, go home, and not get uppity. Thanks for your support. Please stay off my Lawn. (unless you are mowing it)

And if you want to say these are "token" blacks, fine. There has to be lots of qualified African Americans for some of these positions. Why haven't they been appointed on the left side?

(don't start listing off Mayors and Govenors either, I am talking National executive branch and appointed positons)

I have no idea why Condi Rice didn't run. I wish she would have. I would have voted for her in a second. A strong, rags to riches story, very intelligent, good education, and now lots of Foriegn policy exp. Then we would have the First woman, the first Black, and we could get past all this first shit and focus on real things again.

[Archangel]

Because she was one of the architects of the Iraq War, would be my guess.

[Tar Heel]

I agree that the dems do little to help minorities. And I have argued on several occasions here how I think Affirmative Action actually hurts the minorities that it intends to help.

All I am saying is that there is no way in hell, in 2008, that the republican party would nominate a black man named Barack Heusein Obama as their presidential candidate. They might appoint him as Secretary of state, but not for president. That's all I was trying to say... That neither party gets to claim the party of tolerance. Just like neither party gets to claim party of god.

[Tar Heel]

Because she was one of the architects of the Iraq War, would be my guess.

I think Condi was by far the most qualified and intelligent person in the Bush Administration.

[Archangel]

I think Condi was by far the most qualified and intelligent person in the Bush Administration.

The tallest midget analogy comes to mind...


But yeah, nobody is doubting the fact that she is highly fucking intelligent and very skilled politically. Her integrity, however (especially when compared to her ambition), seems to be a matter of some doubt.

[redsox39]

Because she was one of the architects of the Iraq War, would be my guess.

The only reason Obama's hands aren't dirty on this one too, is that he wasn't around.

We wouldn't even be talking about Iraq here if Obama got elected 1 cycle sooner.

Everyone was all about it til the first guy came home in a body bag. Then the figer pointing started flying. CYA time kicked in hard core. People that voted for the war all of a sudden were Hippie Peacenik Pacifists who had "No idea" that REAL bullets and bombs would be used in this military action. apparently we were going over there to find Hilary's virginity using flowers and unicorns. No one told us that Bush was talking about WMD'S! We all KNEW THOSE weren't there! We would have never voted for the war if we knew about that! Bush (the dumbest guy in all of America) apparently TRICKED all of the highly educated, sophisticated people in congress to do his bidding. If they only knew what power his 1 brain cell had over all of them.


All Politicians should have been in the World Trade center that day. What a wonderful world this would be.

[Archangel]

Hell, Joseph Goebbels was probably the most skilled politician of the first half of the 20th century.

[Tar Heel]

The tallest midget analogy comes to mind...


But yeah, nobody is doubting the fact that she is highly fucking intelligent and very skilled politically. Her integrity, however (especially when compared to her ambition), seems to be a matter of some doubt.

Actually, she was heald powerless within the administration untill Rummy was gone. Cheney and Rummy had a death grip on Bush's ear. If Condi or Colin wanted to meet with President Dubbya, they had to leave messages with the VP's office. Rummsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz are really the architects of the Iraq war and deserve the most blame for it's initial failure.

[Archangel]

Good point...

[redsox39]

Actually, she was heald powerless within the administration untill Rummy was gone. Cheney and Rummy had a death grip on Bush's ear. If Condi or Colin wanted to meet with President Dubbya, they had to leave messages with the VP's office. Rummsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz are really the architects of the Iraq war and deserve the most blame for it's initial failure.

I am glad you said "initial" failure. Sometimes it seems that people are disappointed that our troops are winning and not dying as much. I just don't get that at all.

[Archangel]

Well, as successful as the surge was, it still took potential money and troops away from where they were actually needed: Afghanistan.

[Tar Heel]

Condi was calling for the troop surge 1.5 - 2 years before they finally got rid of Rummy. I give Condi alot of credit for the success of the troop surge. But that's the problem with waging a war on multiple fronts. Now Afganistan needs a troop surge. One of my good friends from college died 2 weeks ago in Afganistan. And it's not like there fucking up or slacking off over there. He was a Captain green berret. It's really getting bad there.

This is my friend that died BTW:
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/3753744.html

[Willam]

Well, as successful as the surge was, it still took potential money and troops away from where they were actually needed: Afghanistan.


Damn you and your facts!!!

[Desperado]

I disagree. Until Obama wins, there are very few high democratic postions being held by Blacks.

Condi Rice
Collin Powell
Clarence Thomas
Mr. Watts

Pretty much, republicans WILL put in people who say and do the right things, regardless of race and the stigma of being racists that you keep perpetrating.



None of these people were elected by the Republican base, rather appointed to their positions.


The only reason Obama's hands aren't dirty on this one too, is that he wasn't around.

We wouldn't even be talking about Iraq here if Obama got elected 1 cycle sooner.

Umm he voted against going to the Iraq War didnt he?

[Tar Heel]

He wasn't a senator yet for the initial WMDs vote.

[taters]

The democrats are only slightly less intolerant than republicans for shear fact that they actually include and support different demographics.

Republican/Conservative Ideals:

Hate Gays
Hate blacks
Hate mexicans
Hate arabs
Hate muslims
Hate independent women
Hate Blue Collar Union Workers
Hate Poor people.
Hate Hippies/Greenies.
Hate Big City People


Democrats/Liberals:

Hate Evangelist Christians
Hate white racist
Hate White collar businessmen
Hate Corporations
Hate Rich people
Hate Male chauvenist
Hate Rednecks


Its all a matter of whom you hate. Everyone falls into one or more of those catagories, and if you do, you are most likely to vote for your supporting party (or against the party of those you hate).

[Stax]

Umm he voted against going to the Iraq War didnt he?

No, he gave a speech about it and was clearly against it, but it's hard to vote against the Iraq War from the Illinois State Senate.

[redsox39]

None of these people were elected by the Republican base, rather appointed to their positions.

and if you would have kept reading, you would have seen that I said "appointed postions".

And after they were appointed, we still reelected the man givin "darkie" all this power.

[redsox39]

None of these people were elected by the Republican base, rather appointed to their positions.




Umm he voted against going to the Iraq War didnt he?

Interesting, I didn't know Illinois was so involved in Foreign Policy.

[Tar Heel]

The democrats are only slightly less intolerant than republicans for shear fact that they actually include and support different demographics.

Republican/Conservative Ideals:

Hate Gays
Hate blacks
Hate mexicans
Hate arabs
Hate muslims
Hate independent women
Hate Blue Collar Union Workers
Hate Poor people.
Hate Hippies/Greenies.
Hate Big City People


Democrats/Liberals:

Hate Evangelist Christians
Hate white racist
Hate White collar businessmen
Hate Corporations
Hate Rich people
Hate Male chauvenist
Hate Rednecks


Its all a matter of whom you hate. Everyone falls into one or more of those catagories, and if you do, you are most likely to vote for your supporting party (or against the party of those you hate).

I don't hate any of these people. Although some "Independent Women" and loud fat black women definately annoy me.

[redsox39]

The democrats are only slightly less intolerant than republicans for shear fact that they actually include and support different demographics.

Republican/Conservative Ideals:

Hate Gays
Hate blacks
Hate mexicans
Hate arabs
Hate muslims
Hate independent women
Hate Blue Collar Union Workers
Hate Poor people.
Hate Hippies/Greenies.
Hate Big City People


Democrats/Liberals:

Hate Evangelist Christians
Hate white racist
Hate White collar businessmen
Hate Corporations
Hate Rich people
Hate Male chauvenist
Hate Rednecks


Its all a matter of whom you hate. Everyone falls into one or more of those catagories, and if you do, you are most likely to vote for your supporting party (or against the party of those you hate).

I really hate "bitches that don't suck dick or take in the ass".

What party am I in?

That might be the most retarded list I have ever seen. Actually, I think I hate you. I'll take whatever label that gives me.

Once again, I don't hate blacks, none of family family hates blacks. MAYBE I hate Hippies.

Independant women? wtf is that? You mean women who used Abortions as birth control? Hell, there are a lot of pro choice republicans, you just never see them because they don't go make asses of themselves and make the news.

Roe V wade isn't going anywhere. Ever. Let's let that go now...

Dated a Mexican, loved her family and her sexual appetite.

Don't hate Arabs or Muslims, however, I do hate people who try to blow up my buildings, we call them "terrorists". I also hate gang members, but not just black people.

I hate William Ayers and Tim McVeigh just as much as Osama Bin Laden. they are all cut from the same "LOOK AT ME!! I AM RIGHT!!! LOOK AT ME!!" cloth.


And then, the righteous Dems.

They hate racist people. lol, unless they are Dem's too, then it is ok.

and they only hate rich people until they become one.

[taters]

I don't hate any of these people. Although "Independent Women" and loud fat black women definately annoy me.


What about angry 'in your face' women, and stuck up 'Im richer than you' women?


Heel, I KNOW you must fall into one of those catagories.


Added:
Conservatives/Republicans Hate:

Educated people
Students
Young people
Research Scientist
Public/Trial Lawyers
Nurses
Teachers
Fishermen
Dentist

Liberals/Democrats Hate:

Corporate/Prosecution Lawyers
Old people
Uneducated people
Gun Advocates
Loggers
Truckers
Fishermen
Pharmacist
Doctors (Non GP's)

redsox

I have YET to meet or ever hear any white person admit (seriously) they hate any other group. Even Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Hal Turner, even Richard Butler and David Duke swear and swore they did not hate anyone.

Im not calling you out specifically, just saying.

[redsox39]

No, he gave a speech about it and was clearly against it, but it's hard to vote against the Iraq War from the Illinois State Senate.

He was against it. After we were there. Just like all the other Bandwagoners.

But Pakistan, a sudo ally and Nuclear power, he is all for going in there. Iraq, and their peace loving ways and dictators should have never been touched.

[Da Raider]

Ahhhh, Taters is back.

[taters]

Ahhhh, Taters is back.

Hey, welcome to like, a month and a half ago.

[Morfin]

He was against it. After we were there. Just like all the other Bandwagoners.

But Pakistan, a sudo ally and Nuclear power, he is all for going in there. Iraq, and their peace loving ways and dictators should have never been touched.

Don't tell me that you seriously believe the word is spelled, "sudo."

Reminds me of a TV announcer in the late-80s who, while reading from a tele-prompter pronounced the word, "Puh-suede-oh."

[redsox39]

Don't tell me that you seriously believe the word is spelled, "sudo."

Reminds me of a TV announcer in the late-80s who, while reading from a tele-prompter pronounced the word, "Puh-suede-oh."

lol, you totally caught me. I wish I had an excuse beside typing faster than I was thinking, but I got nothin. However, if writing is just communicating, you got the point.

**hiding face in shame**

[Da Raider]

Here's my hate list:

Lazy people on welfare
Anchor babies
Greedy corrupt CEOs
Greedy corrupt politicians
People who force their religion down my throat
People who force their atheism down my throat
People who would rather watch TMZ/MTV than be informed about politics, foreign policy

I forgot one: Whoever pitched that stupid Jim Belushi "comedy" on tv

[The Batman]

This is my friend that died BTW:
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/3753744.html


the thing I don't like about when they show troops that died is where they put the name of the operation there by their name. especially when its called, Operation Endouring Freedom. Since we all know its BS with a name like that. but, respect to anyone who has the balls to do something like be a green baret and go to war.

[redsox39]

the thing I don't like about when they show troops that died is where they put the name of the operation there by their name. especially when its called, Operation Endouring Freedom. Since we all know its BS with a name like that. but, respect to anyone who has the balls to do something like be a green baret and go to war.

they all have names like that. All of them. 20 years from now, it will just be the Iraq war, and the names of operations will be forgotten. And once we went in there, Endouring Freedom is a fitting name, because now that we have stuck our hand in that hornets nest, if we leave, any sense of freedom will be gone for those people.

Check out some of the Operation Names for Korea or Vietnam. Or even The Gulf war.

You have to admit, Operation Desert Storm was kind of a bad ass name...

[redsox39]

Don't you just love how this has nothing to do with the original topic? Do all threads unravel like this? Guess I never stick with one long enough to find out...

[Tar Heel]

We kinda hijacked it on the Condi tip.

[redsox39]

yeah...but at least I know I am not the only crazy person who would vote for her before any of these jokers.

I think she would be the perfect candidate for President. When I say perfect, I mean "Politician I don't hope dies a painful death".

I don't like any of them, but I think I hate her the least.