2012 Presidential Campaign

[Qwikshot]

I don't get it...Sinead O'Conner rips a picture of the pope in two on live national television and while it got some people upset, she's still alive and kicking.

But anything Islamic that is presented negatively causes rioting and potential death, it's ridiculous. (I know it's not all Muslims but it's a suppression of thought and it feeds the Islamaphobia as those detractors can point to this as evidence that this religion cannot embrace Western ideals - which in itself is fine - but it can't even tolerate it.

As we've seen with South Park (which did a good job poking fun at several "religion", I don't recall the Mormons and Christians getting up in arms, the Scientologists not so much), that even they were not able to present an uncensored episode in regards to the prophet who will not be named.

I'm all for the idea of respect and tolerance, and I understand that there are wackos at there that are all for causing derision, but why is it other faiths brush this stuff off or at least don't resort to extremes. I get that perhaps its due to the internal schisms of the Moslem faith and no true leader (I mean Catholics have the Pope, I believe the Bishop of Westerminster/King is the head of the Protestant faith, Russian and Greek Orthodox have centralized leaders).

It's just very frustrating to me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I don't get it...Sinead O'Conner rips a picture of the pope in two on live national television and while it got some people upset, she's still alive and kicking.

But anything Islamic that is presented negatively causes rioting and potential death, it's ridiculous. (I know it's not all Muslims but it's a suppression of thought and it feeds the Islamaphobia as those detractors can point to this as evidence that this religion cannot embrace Western ideals - which in itself is fine - but it can't even tolerate it.

As we've seen with South Park (which did a good job poking fun at several "religion", I don't recall the Mormons and Christians getting up in arms, the Scientologists not so much), that even they were not able to present an uncensored episode in regards to the prophet who will not be named.

I'm all for the idea of respect and tolerance, and I understand that there are wackos at there that are all for causing derision, but why is it other faiths brush this stuff off or at least don't resort to extremes. I get that perhaps its due to the internal schisms of the Moslem faith and no true leader (I mean Catholics have the Pope, I believe the Bishop of Westerminster/King is the head of the Protestant faith, Russian and Greek Orthodox have centralized leaders).

It's just very frustrating to me.

Ya, this is where the emphasis on religious tolerance is a little off-putting to me. It's like everything was OK until the second someone was killed and that's what crossed the line. But while a few were killed, there's an significant element there that would have loved to kill many more if they could. That's not OK. That's not a form of Islam that we need to be tolerant of. There is an element of Islam that is at war with U.S. and would kill us if they could. That's not Islam generally, of course. And it sure ain't easily to isolate that element out, there's a lot of grey in the middle. And maybe for diplomatic reasons, we can't describe it realistic terms. But it is, like you said, frustrating.

[cartman]

Care to point out instances where people say we have to be tolerant of violent radicals who twist religion to fit their cause?

[JPhillips]

Reading some timelines of events I've seen it hinted that Mitt's statement was made before the killings were made public. It appears that Mitt and the RNC head made their comments, but then embargoed them until 12:01 eastern so as to officially keep from politics on 9/11. If that's really what happened it makes more sense for the campaign, but damn was it a monumental blunder.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Care to point out instances where people say we have to be tolerant of violent radicals who twist religion to fit their cause?

I didn't say that anyone specifically says we have to be tolerant of violent radicals. It's clear that you don't agree, understand, or acknowledge my take on this, so let's just leave it at that instead of you finding all these conclusions I'm not making.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by cartman

Care to point out instances where people say we have to be tolerant of violent radicals who twist religion to fit their cause?

"". No one, NO one is suggesting the idiots deserve anything other than to be brought to justice.

[cartman]

Then what do you mean by 'religious tolerance being off-putting' if you don't mean that people are saying we have to be tolerant of radical jihadists?
Did you get cut off in traffic this morning by a Prius with Obama/Biden 2012 and Co-exist bumper stickers?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

You don't dare the protesters to take it up a notch.

You do if you've got proper security forces in place and enough sense to know how to use them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Did you get cut off in traffic this morning by a Prius with Obama/Biden 2012 and Co-exist bumper stickers?

If that's how you see me it's really not worth trying to discuss this, you're not going to listen anyway and you're not going to make a sincere effort to understand anyone else's perspective. I've already talked about my own thoughts on this. Edit: And you've filled in the gaps of what you don't understand with standard Republican boilerplate, and I'm sure it would blow your mind, but I'm very concerned about both global warming AND co-exist and a productive understanding not only among religions but between the spiritual/religious in general and atheists. I just think there's big issues here beyond the pulling of the trigger and that I PERSONALLY found the comments a little off-putting. If you didn't, great.

Edit: Oh, and let me just deflect against your next post too and point out that me saying that I found the comments a little off-putting DOESN'T mean that I think the attacks are Obama's fault or anything, since I'm sure you'll go there next.

[albionmoonlight]

Unfit for Government

The obvious responsible thing to do when American citizens and public officials are under physical threat abroad and when the details are unknown, and events spiraling, is to stay silent. If the event happens on the day of September 11 and you are a candidate for president and have observed a political truce, all the more reason to wait to allow the facts to emerge. After all, country before party, right? American lives are at stake, yes? An easy call, no?

But that's not what the Romney camp did. What they did was seize on a tweet issued by someone in the US Embassy before the attacks in order to indict the president for "sympathizing" with those who murdered a US ambassador after the attacks. Unfuckingbelievable. Here's the embassy statement from earlier in the day that set off the neocons:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

The statement came from someone in the embassy, and was not formerly issued by the State Department or the White House, both of which have subsequently disavowed the tweet for not also defending absolute freedom of speech. The facts were still murky last night. But the Romney campaign immediately tried to shoe-horn yesterday's fog of mob violence into the "apology" rubric Romney loves so much. The Priebus tweet is disgusting. The first Romney statement is no better:

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

That's untrue. The Obama administration did not issue the tweet, which was, in any case, tweeted before the attacks, not after. Today, Romney doubled down on these two obvious misstatements:

“We join together in the condemnation of attacks on the American embassies and the loss of American life and join in sympathy for these people. It’s also important for me — just as it was for the White House, last night by the way — to say that the statements were inappropriate, and in my view a disgraceful statement on the part of our administration to apologize for American values...

A brief moment of digression: the White House disowned a statement it itself did not release - but is then equally responsible for the tweet itself? The mind boggles. Then this, apparently, is an apology for American values:

Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

I'm a free speech absolutist - but I'm not an anti-religion absolutist. I think a little respect for religions we don't share is something most Americans would think is precisely an American value. I can see why there should have been a defense of the free speech of Terry Jones in that tweet in principle - and there is: "the universal right of free speech." Does Romney think the administration should have defended the film itself? Does Romney?

Of course, sitting in my blogging chair on the Cape, I can demand as radical a defense of blasphemy and hate speech as Romney can. But I was not inside an embassy in a foreign country as mob violence was building outside and as the US government was being conflated entirely with a bigoted anti-Muslim fanatic. And practically speaking, the embassy was trying to calm a situation, not inflame it. And diplomacy in the real world, where American lives are at stake, can necessitate such frustrating but necessary nuances. But such nuances are lost on Romney, as is, it seems, the basic notion of agency and responsibility:

The president takes responsibility not just for the words that come from his mouth but also for the words that come from his ambassadors from his administration, from his embassies, from the State Department. They clearly sent mixed messages to the world, and the statement that came from the administration, and the embassy is the administration. The statement that came from the administration was a statement which is akin to apology and I think was a severe miscalculation.

So the president of the US is directly, personally responsible for a lone tweet designed to calm a dangerous situation, - and this other person's tweet is then described as a "severe miscalculation" by the president and "akin to an apology." Well: you try to figure the logic out. Then this outreach from his senior foreign policy spokesman, Rich Williamson:

Tuesday night, while the attacks were still ongoing, Williamson said that the governments in Egypt and Libya as well as the Obama administration bear responsibility for the deteriorating security environment that led to the attacks.

"The events in Egypt and Libya show the failure of the Egyptian and Libyan governments to uphold their obligations to keep our diplomatic missions safe and secure and the regard in which the United States is held under President Obama in these two countries," he said. "It's all part of a broader scheme of the president's failure to be an effective leader for U.S. interests in the Middle East."

My italics. These people are simply unfit for the responsibility of running the United States. The knee-jerk judgments, based on ideology not reality; the inability to back down when you have said something obviously wrong; and the attempt to argue that the president of the US actually sympathized with those who murdered his own ambassador in Benghazi: these are disqualifying instincts for someone hoping to be the president of the US. Disqualifying.

And, yet, somewhere between 48-52% of the American public is going to go into a booth in two months and do what they can to make sure that Romney gets to be our President for the next four-eight years. Democracy is scary sometimes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Democracy is scary sometimes.

Yep.

In its current form it's mistake that allowed worthless garbage like Obama to be put in office, and failed to produce a better alternative to replace him than a halfassed lightweight like Romney.

[Toddzilla]

Unfit for Government indeed

[larrymcg421]

The Christian persecution complex is so bizarre in this country, considering:

President, VP, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader are all Christian.
483 out of 535 members of Congress are Christian.
6 of 9 Supreme Court Justices are Christian.
47 out of 50 State Governors are Christian.

Yes it must be so hard to be a Christian and deal with the persecution in a country completely politically dominated by Christians at every level of government.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The Christian persecution complex is so bizarre in this country, considering:

President, VP, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader are all Christian.
483 out of 535 members of Congress are Christian.
6 of 9 Supreme Court Justices are Christian.
47 out of 50 State Governors are Christian.

Yes it must be so hard to be a Christian and deal with the persecution in a country completely politically dominated by Christians at every level of government.

"Persecution" is a little harsh but there's definitely been cultural shifts that make some parts of it a little more difficult. And those shifts definitely aren't all bad. But if you're a younger agnostic/christian type you do have to keep that to yourself more if you don't want people to be afraid you're going to try to turn them straight or something. That's not "persecution", and it wouldn't impact the older Christians in power you cited at all, because they don't have that in their world anyway. If you're younger though, and not living in the bible belt, you're going to be around friends and others that rant against Christians and religion generally all the time. Unless you want a fight or want to be judged, you can't be honest with those people about your own beliefs, even if they're unsettled and non-fundamentalist and not tied to any strict opinions about law or anything. So you are kind of forced to deny who you are a little, not to the extent of a gay person, especially a gay person 20 years ago or one today in intolerant environment, but it's the same kind of thing, I think, as far as impact to an individual. I have more than few friends who HATE religion. They're from the northeast, and I find their rants on mormons ignorant and offensive, maybe just because I've learned to live among the mormons and see that they don't have horns or anything. I let it go, which is my choice, and they'd be pretty horrified to know that I myself try to pray and stuff. It's definitely not "persecution" by any means, and its my choice to be friends with them, but it's still a growing kind of intolerance, I think.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

You do if you've got proper security forces in place and enough sense to know how to use them.

If the USA (or even the Egypt or Libya governments) used force to break up the protests, the protesta today would be even worse.

Had U.S. marines fires on protesters, we would be on the brink of World War III.

If the reality is that this attack was the work of an extremist group unrelated the protests using them as a cover, it would make no sense to shoot innocent peoole. Find the perpetrators and take them down.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

It's just very frustrating to me.

The way I heard it described by one of our soldiers in Afghanistan in an article was "The people here get more pissed off about someone 5,000 miles away defacing a Koran then they do about Islamic extremists blowing their children up."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

"Persecution" is a little harsh but there's definitely been cultural shifts that make some parts of it a little more difficult. And those shifts definitely aren't all bad. But if you're a younger agnostic/christian type you do have to keep that to yourself more if you don't want people to be afraid you're going to try to turn them straight or something. That's not "persecution", and it wouldn't impact the older Christians in power you cited at all, because they don't have that in their world anyway. If you're younger though, and not living in the bible belt, you're going to be around friends and others that rant against Christians and religion generally all the time. Unless you want a fight or want to be judged, you can't be honest with those people about your own beliefs, even if they're unsettled and non-fundamentalist and not tied to any strict opinions about law or anything. So you are kind of forced to deny who you are a little, not to the extent of a gay person, especially a gay person 20 years ago or one today in intolerant environment, but it's the same kind of thing, I think, as far as impact to an individual. I have more than few friends who HATE religion. They're from the northeast, and I find their rants on mormons ignorant and offensive, maybe just because I've learned to live among the mormons and see that they don't have horns or anything. I let it go, which is my choice, and they'd be pretty horrified to know that I myself try to pray and stuff. It's definitely not "persecution" by any means, and its my choice to be friends with them, but it's still a growing kind of intolerance, I think.

I've been some strain of mainline protestant my whole life and I've never felt the need to hide that. Yes, I have friends that think religion is silly, but I have friends that can't understand why I'm a Bengals fan or why I like Patsy Cline. I also have evangelical friends that can't understand why I won't join in a Chik-Fil-A chain email or how I could vote for Obama. I don't see differences of opinion as intolerance and those that are genuinely intolerant don't stop me from living the life I choose.

[Easy Mac]

People who think Christians are persecuted should try living in the South. Try being an athiest/agnostic down here.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by molson

"Persecution" is a little harsh but there's definitely been cultural shifts that make some parts of it a little more difficult. And those shifts definitely aren't all bad. But if you're a younger agnostic/christian type you do have to keep that to yourself more if you don't want people to be afraid you're going to try to turn them straight or something. That's not "persecution", and it wouldn't impact the older Christians in power you cited at all, because they don't have that in their world anyway. If you're younger though, and not living in the bible belt, you're going to be around friends and others that rant against Christians and religion generally all the time. Unless you want a fight or want to be judged, you can't be honest with those people about your own beliefs, even if they're unsettled and non-fundamentalist and not tied to any strict opinions about law or anything. So you are kind of forced to deny who you are a little, not to the extent of a gay person, especially a gay person 20 years ago or one today in intolerant environment, but it's the same kind of thing, I think, as far as impact to an individual. I have more than few friends who HATE religion. They're from the northeast, and I find their rants on mormons ignorant and offensive, maybe just because I've learned to live among the mormons and see that they don't have horns or anything. I let it go, which is my choice, and they'd be pretty horrified to know that I myself try to pray and stuff. It's definitely not "persecution" by any means, and its my choice to be friends with them, but it's still a growing kind of intolerance, I think.

Seriously, your anecdotal examples don't hold up in a country with the numbers above. The vast, vast majority of this country is still nominally Christian, and is not "persecuted" in any way shape or form for it. Its silly to pretend otherwise.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

People who think Christians are persecuted should try living in the South. Try being an athiest/agnostic down here.

I'm an Athiest in the north and never get any flack for it and I'm extremely open about it.

[Crapshoot]

A good read on Arkansas, one of the last remnants of the solid south.

Snip.it | Collect Your Web

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Seriously, your anecdotal examples don't hold up in a country with the numbers above. The vast, vast majority of this country is still nominally Christian, and is not "persecuted" in any way shape or form for it. Its silly to pretend otherwise.

It's the war on christmas and easter and not allowing the 10 commandments displayed in a courthouse or prayers from the bible painted on to walls in public schools and crosses erected on public land. It's happening and it's happening in our own back yard.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Grover

I'm an Athiest in the north and never get any flack for it and I'm extremely open about it.

But are you a TRUE atheist?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

It's the war on christmas and easter and not allowing the 10 commandments displayed in a courthouse or prayers from the bible painted on to walls in public schools and crosses erected on public land. It's happening and it's happening in our own back yard.

What is the issue with any of this? If you allow it, allow it for all religions but that never seems to happen...

[Crapshoot]

FYI, more reading on this: Libya is not looking for a fight, they are as pro-American as it gets out there. This was a militia.

12 Photos Of Libyans Apologizing To Americans

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

It's the war on christmas and easter and not allowing the 10 commandments displayed in a courthouse or prayers from the bible painted on to walls in public schools and crosses erected on public land. It's happening and it's happening in our own back yard.

You are being sarcastic here, right?

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Seriously, your anecdotal examples don't hold up in a country with the numbers above. The vast, vast majority of this country is still nominally Christian, and is not "persecuted" in any way shape or form for it. Its silly to pretend otherwise.

I don't think it's fair to nullify someone's experience like that just because statistics suggest to you that it should be otherwise. In the liberal parts of hte northeast I've known many Christians who feel exactly like Molson. It all depends on your social surroundings. If you're in the parts of the country I've lived in, it's very much the norm to make comments about Christians and look a bit askance at people who are devout believers. The fact that Christians outnumber the rest doesn't make a difference if that's not the case in the people you socialize with.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

But are you a TRUE atheist?

Last I checked

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Chubby

What is the issue with any of this? If you allow it, allow it for all religions but that never seems to happen...

Admittedly, I was being sarcastic in that particular post.

It's based on the perception that christianity is under attack here in America that is being vocalized by idiots like Limbaugh and Beck and other conservatives in this country.

I agree with you up to a certain point. Being a firm believer in the 1st Amendment and the separation of church and state, there should be zero displays of anything religious or non religious 'things' on or in public property, as I feel that the government should remain neutral other than when these rights are infringed on.

The current problem with trying to include everything, it really seems to get a lot of religious folks' panties in a wad. For instance, I think it was Kentucky that passed a law that allows public funding for private religious school vouchers. That was all fine and dandy until the muslim community there started to use them too. Oh boy did that piss off a lot of the christians in that state.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

You are being sarcastic here, right?

Absolutely 100% sarcasm.

[cartman]

Someone might want to tell Romney to not smirk as he's leaving the podium where he just weighed in on the deaths of 4 Americans.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've been some strain of mainline protestant my whole life and I've never felt the need to hide that. Yes, I have friends that think religion is silly, but I have friends that can't understand why I'm a Bengals fan or why I like Patsy Cline. I also have evangelical friends that can't understand why I won't join in a Chik-Fil-A chain email or how I could vote for Obama. I don't see differences of opinion as intolerance and those that are genuinely intolerant don't stop me from living the life I choose.

Wait a minute, are we just going to let this slide?

[Grover]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Wait a minute, are we just going to let this slide?

There's nothing wrong with being a Bengals fan.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cartman

Someone might want to tell Romney to not smirk as he's leaving the podium where he just weighed in on the deaths of 4 Americans.

It worked for Bush 43. I was taken aback by his smile and smirk during the press conference.

Gallup tracking poll hit a 7-point lead for Obama today, making it a 6-point convention bump in that poll. Worse for Romney is Obama hit 50 percent.

[Schmidty]

Our country is getting into the "decadent" category, especially our political system.

I don't think we last another 40 years going with a 50/50 choice every four years. We're drilled in the pooper.

Vote Yourself in '12!!!

(There's my motherfucking political comment for the month, assbitchwhores.)

[JPhillips]

I think that smirk is just a nervous tic. He does that a lot when he's being challenged.

But it does look out of place.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

People who think Christians are persecuted should try living in the South. Try being an athiest/agnostic down here.

Amen to that brother

PS - I don't feel particularly 'persecuted' though; people do react oddly at times when they realise I'm not a church goer .... but they also react oddly when they realise that I play soccer 3 times a week at the age of 41, not a big deal I'm just not the 'norm' for people in this region.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think that smirk is just a nervous tic. He does that a lot when he's being challenged.

But it does look out of place.

I agree with that - part of the problem with politics worldwide these days is the increasing 'micro-analysis' of things; the days when a great leader could guide a country has gone ... today its all about micro-analysing things which don't truly matter rather than just judging politicians on the decisions they make which are important.

[ISiddiqui]

All this for a smirk. I'm backing Obama, but seriously, it's not that big a deal that Romney had one picture where it seemed like he was smirking. The small things we tend to blow up...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I don't think it's fair to nullify someone's experience like that just because statistics suggest to you that it should be otherwise. In the liberal parts of hte northeast I've known many Christians who feel exactly like Molson. It all depends on your social surroundings. If you're in the parts of the country I've lived in, it's very much the norm to make comments about Christians and look a bit askance at people who are devout believers. The fact that Christians outnumber the rest doesn't make a difference if that's not the case in the people you socialize with.

Exactly, I know the national numbers, but what about the numbers for say - people in their late 20s and early 30s from northeast cities who have graduate degrees and a certain income? It's not a very christian or religious group. Very few people in that group go to church or would identify themselves as religious. (Edit: and again, I'm not saying any of this adds up to "persecution," just discussing the trends).

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

All this for a smirk. I'm backing Obama, but seriously, it's not that big a deal that Romney had one picture where it seemed like he was smirking. The small things we tend to blow up...

I agree.

[Autumn]

Well, to play devil's advocate, a large part of voting for someone is attempting to assess their character. And in some ways you can tell a lot more about a guy by body language than what script they read at a podium. Certainly people like to make mountains out of molehills, but there's also an impulse here to understand what kind of person is running for president, and how do I feel about that kind of person.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Well, to play devil's advocate, a large part of voting for someone is attempting to assess their character. And in some ways you can tell a lot more about a guy by body language than what script they read at a podium. Certainly people like to make mountains out of molehills, but there's also an impulse here to understand what kind of person is running for president, and how do I feel about that kind of person.

But you have no context for that picture apart from the fact its at the end of a press conference ... for all you know someone just slipped on a bannana skin in front of him and landed head first in a nearby custard pie, its a photo intended to present him in a specific light to people.

Frankly to me what people look like isn't as important as what they 'do' ...

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

for all you know someone just slipped on a bannana skin in front of him and landed head first in a nearby custard pie

It probably comes from watching too much Monty Python, but that's pretty much how I imagine most political press conferences end in the UK :-)

[cartman]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It probably comes from watching too much Monty Python, but that's pretty much how I imagine most political press conferences end in the UK :-)

True. We can't tell from just a picture if he broke into the silly walk immediately after that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It probably comes from watching too much Monty Python, but that's pretty much how I imagine most political press conferences end in the UK :-)

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

But you have no context for that picture apart from the fact its at the end of a press conference ... for all you know someone just slipped on a bannana skin in front of him and landed head first in a nearby custard pie, its a photo intended to present him in a specific light to people.

Frankly to me what people look like isn't as important as what they 'do' ...

Exactly. And its a picture... one can make someone look completely ridiculous when caught at the right (or wrong) moment.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

But you have no context for that picture apart from the fact its at the end of a press conference ... for all you know someone just slipped on a bannana skin in front of him and landed head first in a nearby custard pie, its a photo intended to present him in a specific light to people.

Frankly to me what people look like isn't as important as what they 'do' ...

I'm not suggesting someone vote based on one picture. I'm just saying that things like facial expressions are part of what we use to assess someone. One picture adds to a pile of things about a person and you try to piece something together about their personality.

But yeah, I did some research on Snopes for a class last year in the political sections and there's piles and piles of e-mail forwards of awkward or faked pictures like this. I generally agree that it's stupid to make much out of one millisecond of time.

[larrymcg421]

The smirk is just a bad, unfortunate political moment. Kinda reminds me of The 92 debate when Bush looked at his watch and that was interpreted that he was bored or didn't care, when he was really emphasizing that Clinton had been rambling for a long time.

However, that's how the game is played as we see with the whole stupid "You didn't build that" theme, which anyone with a functioning brain cell knows is not at all an accurate representation of what Obama meant.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I'm not suggesting someone vote based on one picture. I'm just saying that things like facial expressions are part of what we use to assess someone. One picture adds to a pile of things about a person and you try to piece something together about their personality.

But yeah, I did some research on Snopes for a class last year in the political sections and there's piles and piles of e-mail forwards of awkward or faked pictures like this. I generally agree that it's stupid to make much out of one millisecond of time.

The problem is there is a huge difference between a photograph and watching someone's body langauge. Hit pause on your DVR sometime on one of those shows with like 5 talking heads. At least 2-3 of them will have some weird expression on their face. (Closed eyes, long chin, grin, frown) The difference is photographers used to throw those pictures out, now they use them as a "gotcha". If there is an extended "smirk" on video your case is a little more solid.