signs of the times

[fent]

i realize that Obama claims he wants to reach across the aisle and work with the opposition party...but maybe he should tell his supporters that. by their logic, any obama supporter in Texas should be run out of town for daring to support someone that the majority of their neighbors don't agree is the best man for the job.

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

The sign went up Sunday evening, bold black letters against the stark white background of the marquee at the Colony South Hotel & Conference Center in Clinton: "Country First. McCain/Palin."

By daybreak, pandemonium had broken loose all across heavily Democratic Prince George's County. Many local supporters of Democrat Barack Obama, jolted by the message as they headed down Branch Avenue on their Monday morning commutes, grabbed cellphones and BlackBerrys to notify friends. Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships. The NAACP 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 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."

[Fathead]

Well, their actions only brought more attention to the message.


I'm all for people boycotting things they don't agree with. Just don't make it a scene because you defeat the purpose.

[BurgundyNGold]

Anyone who thinks that Obama is not going to be as partisian as W has been apparently hasn't checked Obama's voting records.

[dukeuch]

Anyone who thinks that Obama is not going to be as partisian as W has been apparently hasn't checked Obama's voting records.

This administrations's record makes clear that partisan votes AGAINST W would have be the correct way to go. Nothing wrong with being partisan if you are righ...er, correct.

[fent]

This administrations's record makes clear that partisan votes AGAINST W would have be the correct way to go. Nothing wrong with being partisan if you are righ...er, correct.

so it's not bragging if it's true?

[dukeuch]

so it's not bragging if it's true?

Well, Muhammad, let's say it can be both bragging and true.

[fent]

Well, Muhammad, let's say it can be both bragging and true.

Muhammad?

[Keino]

I guess I don't understand the problem here. If a hotel in Texas put up a sign that said "Country First Obama/Biden". The people who live in that community would be free to boycott that business as not being in touch with the needs of the community.

The logic is pretty clear. Understand the community in which you are hoping to profit in, because not doing so can bite you in the ass. The smart business decision for a Obama supporting Business man in a heavily GOP district is to not have your business associated with your politics.

Would anyone have boycotted the owner/owners for using their homes and yards for McCain/Palin signs? Not at all. But if one hotel is slient on the issue and the other is in opposition (to my personal viewpoint), where do you think I am going to spend my dollars if they offer comparable services?

[Biggie]

Well, Muhammad, let's say it can be both bragging and true.
What is that supposed to mean?

[AliBabba]

What is that supposed to mean?
I think he had fent confused with one of my uncles

[Fathead]

I guess I don't understand the problem here. If a hotel in Texas put up a sign that said "Country First Obama/Biden". The people who live in that community would be free to boycott that business as not being in touch with the needs of the community.

The logic is pretty clear. Understand the community in which you are hoping to profit in, because not doing so can bite you in the ass. The smart business decision for a Obama supporting Business man in a heavily GOP district is to not have your business associated with your politics.

Would anyone have boycotted the owner/owners for using their homes and yards for McCain/Palin signs? Not at all. But if one hotel is slient on the issue and the other is in opposition (to my personal viewpoint), where do you think I am going to spend my dollars if they offer comparable services?

I agree completely. To me the offensive part is the idiocy of these geniuses who now have made this a reportable issue. Just call your friends and make sure everyone who is like minded doesn't use the hotel. Don't give the hotel free publicity!

[Biggie]

I think he had fent confused with one of my uncles
Or one of mine.

[fent]

I guess I don't understand the problem here. If a hotel in Texas put up a sign that said "Country First Obama/Biden". The people who live in that community would be free to boycott that business as not being in touch with the needs of the community.

The logic is pretty clear. Understand the community in which you are hoping to profit in, because not doing so can bite you in the ass. The smart business decision for a Obama supporting Business man in a heavily GOP district is to not have your business associated with your politics.

Would anyone have boycotted the owner/owners for using their homes and yards for McCain/Palin signs? Not at all. But if one hotel is slient on the issue and the other is in opposition (to my personal viewpoint), where do you think I am going to spend my dollars if they offer comparable services?

i'm all for boycotting companies that you don't agree with certain issues with...i think boycotting a private business because the owner supports a specific candidate is a little silly myself, but this is the line that just caught my eye.

"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."

showing outward support of a political candidate isn't disrespect and it's not a slap in the face to show disagreement on an issue, even as big as the decision coming on Nov. 4.

[redskin_rich]

I tend to hold disdain for people that advertise their politics. Signs, bumper stickers, whatever. What makes people think anyone else cares or should care?

And no, its not the same as supporting the Redskins or something like that. It is more trying to force your beliefs on someone else. Just my opinion.

[csquared]

I tend to hold disdain for people that advertise their politics. Signs, bumper stickers, whatever. What makes people think anyone else cares or should care?

And no, its not the same as supporting the Redskins or something like that. It is more trying to force your beliefs on someone else. Just my opinion.

Kinda like all the rainbow crap on peoples cars. Thanks! I get it your gay.

[Keino]

i'm all for boycotting companies that you don't agree with certain issues with...i think boycotting a private business because the owner supports a specific candidate is a little silly myself, but this is the line that just caught my eye.

The issue isn't with the Business owner supporting a specific candidate. It is with a Business owner using the Business to support the candidate. There is a small distinction there. If JW Marriott comes out on TV and endorses McCain, I am not going to stop staying in Marriott Hotels. However, if every Marriott hotel is being used as a McCain/Palin Bilboard, then I am certainly going to start considering Hiltons and Hyatts as my liberal money obviously isn't important to Mr. Marriott.



showing outward support of a political candidate isn't disrespect and it's not a slap in the face to show disagreement on an issue, even as big as the decision coming on Nov. 4.

I agree, but I can see how, especially in the wake of how big of a decision it is (Likely is going to mean a SCOTUS seat at least), one would be offended by a Business outwardly supporting a candidate that I oppose and it would certainly make me think twice about patronizing said business.

[dukeuch]

Muhammad?

Ali, as in "it aint bragging if you can back it up".

[Ibleedburgundy]

I don't see how you can make accusations of partisanship while simultaneously defending the claim that Republicans put country first whereas Democrats do not.

[BurgundyNGold]

This administrations's record makes clear that partisan votes AGAINST W would have be the correct way to go. Nothing wrong with being partisan if you are righ...er, correct.
Thanks for the partisan reasoning to explain a partisan voting record, lol.

[dukeuch]

Thanks for the partisan reasoning to explain a partisan voting record, lol.

Not a problem. Look, I don't expect conservatives to do much different than vote 90%+ of the time in support of conservative policies, and I don't expect liberals to do much different than to vote 90%+ of the time in opposition to conservative policies, and vice versa. I think the exceptions will usually occur on "lifestyle" issues, like abortion, gay marraige, etc.

Contrary to popular sound bites, I believe there ARE differences between the two parties. For the most part, the goals are the same, national security, economic growth, etc. The parties differ on the policies to get to those goals. Toss in the concurrent requirements usually attached to a bill, such as including or not including a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in a bill to "fund our troops", and the Democrats, who generally support getting out quicker than Republicans, and there is the "partisanship". Except in this case, and most, I call it voting thier beliefs, the beliefs that landed them in their party in the first place.

Concerning the state of the US right now, I maintain that supporting a set of policies different than the conservative set of the past 8 years would likely have had better results than what we have, and therefore it would not make sense to elect someone with a record of supporting the poilicies that landed us where we are today. Anyone thinking otherwise should vote for McCain.

Happier with this extended answer?

[BurgundyNGold]

Not a problem. Look, I don't expect conservatives to do much different than vote 90%+ of the time in support of conservative policies, and I don't expect liberals to do much different than to vote 90%+ of the time in opposition to conservative policies, and vice versa. I think the exceptions will usually occur on "lifestyle" issues, like abortion, gay marraige, etc.

Contrary to popular sound bites, I believe there ARE differences between the two parties. For the most part, the goals are the same, national security, economic growth, etc. The parties differ on the policies to get to those goals. Toss in the concurrent requirements usually attached to a bill, such as including or not including a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in a bill to "fund our troops", and the Democrats, who generally support getting out quicker than Republicans, and there is the "partisanship". Except in this case, and most, I call it voting thier beliefs, the beliefs that landed them in their party in the first place.

Concerning the state of the US right now, I maintain that supporting a set of policies different than the conservative set of the past 8 years would likely have had better results than what we have, and therefore it would not make sense to elect someone with a record of supporting the poilicies that landed us where we are today. Anyone thinking otherwise should vote for McCain.
None of this changes the fact that Obama voted with his party something like 97% of the time. Now, either Obama is the exact moral compass of the Dems, or he is towing the company line more than he is voting with his conscience. The same goes for McCain and his 90% party line voting record since 2004.

Happier with this extended answer?
Yes, thank you.

[dukeuch]

None of this changes the fact that Obama voted with his party something like 97% of the time. Now, either Obama is the exact moral compass of the Dems, or he is towing the company line more than he is voting with his conscience. The same goes for McCain and his 90% party line voting record since 2004.


Yes, thank you.

Yeah, but this all gets back to the issue of if your partisan votes are aligned with policies that have disaterous results, you got a problem. If your partisan votes are AGAINST those failed policies, than what's the problem with being partisan?

[redskin_rich]

Yeah, but this all gets back to the issue of if your partisan votes are aligned with policies that have disaterous results, you got a problem. If your partisan votes are AGAINST those failed policies, than what's the problem with being partisan?

Partisan = closed mind

Take a look at the issues and policies. Make up your own mind. Partisanship and single issue voters are why we have had such failures.

I'm glad that something important, like the economy, is the biggest issue today but at the same time, McCain wasn't personally responsible for what has happened yet he is tethered to it into the oblivion like Ahab.

Still beats gay marriage, gays in the military, abortion rights or any other meaningless issue that has swung voters in the past.

[dukeuch]

Partisan = closed mind

Take a look at the issues and policies. Make up your own mind. Partisanship and single issue voters are why we have had such failures.

I'm glad that something important, like the economy, is the biggest issue today but at the same time, McCain wasn't personally responsible for what has happened yet he is tethered to it into the oblivion like Ahab.

Still beats gay marriage, gays in the military, abortion rights or any other meaningless issue that has swung voters in the past.

Well, it's not like McCain's 90% support of Bush only relates to the economy.

[redskin_rich]

Well, it's not like McCain's 90% support of Bush only relates to the economy.

Who said it did? You?