COMMENTARY: Democrats Pick Wrong Issue To Boo
Posted: September 15, 2012 at 4:29 a.m.
Modern political conventions have become scripted events, so people take notice when something doesn’t go as planned. One prominent unscripted moment at last week’s Democratic National Convention led to what some could have construed as delegates booing God.
This story is only available from our archives.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 09/15/2012
(Advertisement)
« Previous Story
Get ready, get set, stop
THAT WAS a weirder city council meeting than usual in Eureka Springs last week. Which is saying something. Folks in Eureka, or at least the political types, tend to do thin... Read »
Next Story »
PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Show Grit On Gridiron, Razo...
Through good times and bad, I support the Arkansas Razorback sports program. The recent unfortunate loss by our football team to the University of Louisiana Monroe was deva... Read »
Comments
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Please read our comment policy.
What's the point of this?
The only way there would be a controversy is if the Republicans make it into a controversy.
BTW, when I went to school it was before they put "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance. I learned the Pledge the old way, and I like it the old way.
There is no mention of God in the Constitution, and I don't see why we should gloss over everything we do as a nation by pretending it is God-ordained.
Posted by: Coralie
September 15, 2012 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
The author, Jason, contradicts himself. He says:
"...the boos were from delegates upset they had been asked their opinion on an amendment to include a mention of God in the platform and then had the expression of their opinion ignored."
Then says:
"It’s clear the spectacle of booing an amendment to add God back to the platform is not going to play well in the state."
He's probably right in the first claim, but he can't have both.
Jay Barth is quoted: "The Democratic Party has historically been the party of expanding rights and of the future and, on this issue, I think we’re achieving both at the same time.”
Jason adds: "While Barth might be right for the country as a whole, I am not so sure Arkansas is there yet.">>
The progress of rising support for gay marriage for each state can be seen in this chart:
http://static.thesocietypages.org/soc...
D.
-----------------
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...
Posted by: fayfreethinker
September 15, 2012 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Interesting graph. Younger people are in advance on this issue even more than I realized.
That is why things are going to change.
Posted by: Coralie
September 15, 2012 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
As usual, Coralie and Free Loader ignore the facts from the convetion. The delegates not only booed the introduction of God into the platform, which several only choose to invoke when it supports their ideas of increased government control over an individual's economic decisions, but they also booed the inclusion of support for our major ally in the Middle East. The issue is that the Democrat party that they support is becoming more openly anti-Semitic, which explains the current foreign policy of this administration. This is the true tide of this party which sees individuals as factions to be exploited. They don't care about a group unless it donates boatloads of money and votes to their cause, and will turn on them the minute that a better opportunity comes along.
Posted by: IrishMensa
September 16, 2012 at 12:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
As for these groups that support the Democrat Party, what really happens to that support?
The Democrats want to force gay marriage on churches that (last time we read our Constitution) had freedom of religion under the First Amendment. The foreign policy in the Middle East also kowtows to countries where gay marriage is not an issue because, according to their leaders, there are no gays in their country...and if they are, the country's leaders do not plan to see them live long enough to bring marriage into the equation.
The Democrats also court the Jewish vote in states such as Florida and New York, even though the president (and Secretary of State for that matter) have, at best, attempted to play both sides of the fence in the dispute between Israel and its growing list of enemies, and at worst, have undermined our most loyal ally at every turn. The reward for the Clinton-Obama Doctrine has been burning of embassies and the murder of an ambassador. Meanwhile, Iran is getting closer to gaining nuclear weapons, which they can give to all of their friends and clients.
The Democrat Party is almost assured of the African-American (black) vote, even though unemmployment has skyrocketed under the current administration, and every effort of this president has been to exacerbate this problem through his economic policies. Ditto for Latinos and young Americans in general. When a college graduate is more likely to wind up on Food Stamps than to find a job, we have a serious problem. That may not be the circumstance right now, but under this president, it is moving in that direction.
That is why things have to change...starting with the occupant of the Oval Office.
Posted by: IrishMensa
September 16, 2012 at 12:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
"support for our major ally in the Middle East"
The U.S. continues to send more foreign aid to Israel than to any other nation, as it has done for many years.
This support has allowed Israel to illegally occupy ever more of the Palestinians' land. The situation is very similar to what the United States did to the Native American people who were here before us. Perhaps that is why some here so strongly support Israel's expansionist Likud Party.
Not everybody in Israel likes what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Insofar as Israel is a democracy, people there do not agree on all issues. There are for instance "Refuseniks" who refuse to serve in the occupied territories despite the threat of jail terms.
Posted by: Coralie
September 17, 2012 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I don't see that it is any business of my country to determine where the capital of another country should be located.
Posted by: Coralie
September 17, 2012 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
"The U.S. continues to send more foreign aid to Israel than to any other nation, as it has done for many years.
This support has allowed Israel to illegally occupy ever more of the Palestinians' land. The situation is very similar to what the United States did to the Native American people who were here before us."
Coralie, as usual you are wrong. The League of Nations, in 1922, issued a mandate and purchased the land to encourage a "return" of Jews to their homeland. There was not then, nor never was a Palestinian country.
So what makes them illegal occupiers?
Liberals, like yourself, prefer to make up facts as they go along.
Posted by: patrioteer
September 17, 2012 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Irish mensa, it is NOT anti semitic to back up a little and realize that both Israel and Palestine have done both right and wrong. Our rabid total support of Israel and total disregard of the Palestinians has been wrong.
If you were driven from your legal home where you had lived all your life by newcomers because third parties said so, you wouldn't like it any better than the Palestinians do.
My brother went to the U of A with a Palestinian who told him many Palestinians in the refugee camps still carried the key to their old front doors. They laid out the camps as close to the way their streets and homes had been as possible. They live in hope of someday reclaiming their houses. How could anyone not empathize with them?
Posted by: inquire
September 17, 2012 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
I'm not talking about various historical mandates but what has been happening for the last 45 years, since Israel seized territory from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967 .
"Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980 and the Golan Heights in 1981 has not been recognised by any other country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-...
http://theliberalstore.com/AsWeSeeIt/...
Posted by: Coralie
September 17, 2012 at 6:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie, who started the Six-Day War of 1967? I know you're old enough to remember the war was started to rid the region of Jews. How did that work out for them?
Israel occupied the West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem since the war. Areas that allowed Israel to provide a degree of protection from their enemies. They subsequently allowed the Palestinians to control Gaza and the West Bank. How has that worked out for Israel? Constant missile attacks, that's how.
Don't start a war with Israel if you want to keep the land from which you launch those attacks.
If you lived in a city that was under continuous attack from a neighboring town, any sane person would annex that area for the security of their family. I didn't mean liberal people, just sane people.
By the way Coralie, don't bother to link to liberal websites. How one sided can you be? I thought you liberals were supposed to be so open minded.
Posted by: patrioteer
September 17, 2012 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
By the way Coralie, in case you missed my point, Israel has occupied those areas since the 1967 war not, as you stated, since 1980 and 1981.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa...
Posted by: patrioteer
September 17, 2012 at 9:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire, did you know that after the 1948 war some 700,000 Jews immigrated to Israel after being expelled from their homes in Arab countries?
Do you suppose some of them kept the keys to the homes they were forced to leave, many being forced to leave personal possessions behind?
How could anyone not empathize with them?
Posted by: patrioteer
September 17, 2012 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PAT: "don't bother to link to liberal websites.">>
Yes Coralie, you must restrict any research to right-wing sites only. Otherwise wingnut heads may explode. And we can't have that.
PAT: "How one sided can you be?">>
Yes Coralie, using anything other than pre-approved conservative sources, is being "one sided." You mustn't do that. It causes conservatives discomfort when information doesn't comport with their carefully constructed confabulations.
PAT: "I thought you liberals were supposed to be so open minded.">>
Since when does being open minded include letting wingnuts get away with riding their tired old genetic fallacy hobby horse? It doesn't.
I don't argue the Middle East peace thing. Dave Barry explains why.
D.
------------------
"They can hold all the peace talks they want, but there will never be peace in the Middle East. Billions of years from now, when Earth is hurtling toward the Sun and there is nothing left alive on the planet except a few microorganisms, the microorganisms living in the Middle East will be bitter enemies."
-- Dave Barry, "25 Things I Have Learned in 50 Years"
Posted by: fayfreethinker
September 17, 2012 at 10:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FFT, how many times have I seen you castigate someone on these comment pages for offering nothing to the discussion?
As Reagan said, "here you go again"
FFT, it would be better for you to remain silent and have people think you're intelligent than to comment and remove all doubt.
Just sayin'
Posted by: patrioteer
September 17, 2012 at 10:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PAT: "FFT, how many times have I seen you castigate someone on these comment pages for offering nothing to the discussion?">>
Never. Not once. Ever. I've never said that or anything like that. Feel free to show otherwise. That's not the way I roll. Even when someone says something intensely silly or stupendously wrong, as regularly happens, it provides a useful opportunity to teach and inform (and for me to learn as I investigate the claim).
And pointing out your absurd fallacious illogic once again, as I did above, certainly in my mind provides a necessary contribution.
D.
-----------------
How 'bout that Romney eh?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opi...
Conservative David Brooks rips him a new one.
Posted by: fayfreethinker
September 17, 2012 at 11:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Amnesty international has a great many concerns about the behavior of the Israelis toward the Palestinians, and a few concerns, also, about the behavior of the Palestinians toward the Israelis.
www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries...
The mindset of some Americans that Israel is always right and Palestine is always wrong is incomprehensible. There is no reason for us to put one on a pedestal and curse the other. We should not be so invested in unconditionally siding with Israel even when they do wrong.
Posted by: inquire
September 18, 2012 at 2:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Patrioteer says "Coralie, in case you missed my point, Israel has occupied those areas since the 1967 war not, as you stated, since 1980 and 1981."
The statement I quoted spoke of ANNEXATION not of OCCUPATION.
"JERUSALEM, Dec. 14 -- The contested Golan Heights formally became part of Israel today as Prime Minister Menachem Begin pushed a measure through Parliament to annex the strategic zone along the Syrian border. Officials said the new measure provided that ''the law, jurisdiction and administration of the state shall apply to the Golan Heights.''
The area had been held under military occupation since Israel captured it from Syria in the 1967 war."
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gener...
Patrioteer, why don't you look up stuff before automatically assuming I am wrong?
Posted by: Coralie
September 18, 2012 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Get real people!
are you really hearing what is being said today by the republican party?
Romney said Obama supports redistribution of wealth from “some” to “the others.” —— this bothers me in so many ways. Mitt Romney made 200 million dollars last year and the paid 13% income tax. Normal middle income Americans who make 1000 times less than he does, and I am not being factious, that IS an actual literal figure, 1000x less than he does, pay a higher tax rate. And…he’s fine with this. His entire platform, entirely, is low taxes. And the rest of the country “are not my concern” he says. In a nutshell his entire premise for running for president is for him to not pay taxes. Educational opportunity, manufacturing base, foreign policy…none of his concern. He’s basically concerned with not raising taxes on the wealthy. period. Oh, and all those people on social security, veterans, disability, yeah, entitlements..gone. Nobody is entitled to anything. EVERY entitlement is on the chopping block. We give old people their $50 voucher, there you go, you’re done, no more payments for you. We dont want billionaires to have to pay the same tax rate as middle class folks. Leona Helmsly said it best “only little people pay taxes”.
yoyo means anyone who makes less than $50,000 a year, or is on social security or medicare, or medicaid or unemployment...
you are on your own...you are NOT represented by the Romney/Ryan plan.
Posted by: ladyLiberty
September 18, 2012 at 9:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
That 47% who pay no income tax includes soldiers serving overseas and also people on Social Security--like me--who paid into it for 40+ years and regarded it like an annuity.
Also, when the economy is better, more people pay income tax.
Posted by: Coralie
September 19, 2012 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
>>Mitt Romney made 200 million dollars last year and the paid 13% income tax
Lady Lib, think you should look that number up. He reportedly made millions but not $200 mill.
How do they do it? A little trick slipped into the U.S. tax code called "investment interest" or "carry interest."
That class of income is treated like capital gains taxes and taxed at 15%.
Republicans prefer to tax wages or work, not profits.
Posted by: cdawg
September 19, 2012 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Coralie,
RE-
"That 47% who pay no income tax includes soldiers serving overseas"
That is only true in certain designated "combat zones". It is an employer "benefit", otherwise the same tax code applies.
V/r,
Tank
Posted by: Tankersley101
September 20, 2012 at 4:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
... and we ALWAYS pay into SSI not matter where we are serving.
Posted by: Tankersley101
September 20, 2012 at 5:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
You mean Social Security, not SSI don't you?
Posted by: Coralie
September 20, 2012 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cdawg
you are right..my mistake.
correction:
the only year Romney released his taxes..he made $20.1 million..a decimal error on previous comment.
by the by when is Romney going to release this years' taxes? it is getting suspicious as heck that he is waiting until after the election?
Posted by: ladyLiberty
September 20, 2012 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Corlie,
You are correct, Social Security.
Posted by: Tankersley101
September 25, 2012 at 4:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Registration is required to make comments. Click here to LOGIN.
You can register for FREE to post comments and receive alerts.