Flag City, USA - home of the most stupid people in the USA

The Washington Post just ran an article about Obama’s problems in the Midwest and spent quite bit of time in this most patriotic of all American cities. Lots of quotes about the vast number of flags flying and the competition to see who has the biggest pole, etc. (Can’t find a free link)

What it came down to was they don’t like Obama because he was born in Iran, or Iraq or Arabia, and he’s a Muslim and he refuses to wear a flag pin evrey day like every red blooded American should. And they know this because they heard it from their neighbor.

I was appalled at the number of folks who from their accomplishments and work history must have at least a room tempertaure IQ but are making their political choices based on the rumor mill.

I’ve been reading the materials published by both sides to figure out exactly which candidate would be best for me. Guess I should just check with our village witch.

Rather remarkable, wasn’t it?

I think Winston Churchill mentioned the best argument against democracy was a half-hour talking to an average voter.

Of course when the US was started, in general you had to be a landowning male to vote, which would be parallel to saying that (in modern day) only people making more than $40,000 a year can vote. This would, I suspect, lower the number of people who were complete flaming idiots. It would still leave a lot, but as a percentage of voter population it would be less.

The country would also turn more republican and less religious, statistically speaking.

You probably wouldn’t be able to find one that wasn’t NSFW anyway. :smiley:

The competition to see who’s got the biggest pole is now patriotic? In that case, I’m changing my name to SUPER PATRIOT!

Here’s the original article:


Here’s a reply from the Findlay newspaper:


I grew up in Hancock County (where Findlay is located). It’s interesting whenever I see mention of some place that I know in The Washington Post, which I subscribe to.

I happen to agree with the editorial in the Findlay Courier:

Whatever one’s feelings about displaying the American flag, it is, as I’ve noted before on this board, a grave tactical mistake for the left to sneer at “flag-wavers”. It’s a fine recipe for losing more elections.

I think the Findlay paper’s editorial was on the mark in some ways - the Washingon Post reporter was out to find credulous, foolish people and link them with the “Flag City” label, and he did - just as he could have found them all over the country.

Wonder how tough it would be to find a bunch of D.C.-area residents who are convinced that we invaded Iraq just to get oil, or that vaccines cause autism and other diseases, or that the C.I.A. created AIDS as a plot to kill off black people, and to tar the whole region as a hotbed of nincompoopery?

Not only would that be a cakewalk, it would easily tar only one party - Washington DC is a one-party state in its city government and its elections.

You have an endearingly naive overestimation of the media penetration power of the SDMB.

Do you actually think he’s warning SDMB posters against doing so because he think it’ll affect the election? He’s clearly talking about the left in general.

Quite honestly, I’ve never heard anti-flag sentiment from anyone except myself - except here.

It’s not really an anti-flag sentiment in my experience. It’s a “You’re so naive to think that the US is the greatest country on earth only because you’ve been spoon fed that since you were little. Try some critical thinking for once” sentiment. It’s disdainfully looking at the “America, FUCK YEAH!” type of people. It doesn’t matter if their point of view doesn’t make sense, there are a lot of them, and they vote. To ignore that is to risk your candidacy.

I’m talking about literal anti-flag sentiment, ie. “Why the fuck does that Toyota dealer fly a giant US flag? They’re not fooling anyone…”

I don’t think that’s what Jackmannii was talking about.

So you’re against shallow displays of patriotism? I wouldn’t think that is uncommon.

The Findlay editorial does not dispute any facts in the original article, lamely tries to claim that most people “didn’t know what to think” about Obama rumors, rather thn believing them outright (implying that there is anything even to ponder), accuses Obama of having “Muslim roots,” and implies that he’s a racist. Whoever wrote that editorial does more to confirm the Wapo piece than to discredit it.

Is that not an accurate way of putting it? Here’s what wiki says about his father:

So, is it not fair to describe that situation as “muslim roots”, even though Mr Obama is a Christian? It’s part of his family background, via his father’s family.

No, it’s not accurate. Barack himself does not have Muslim roots of any sort. Neither of his parents were Muslim and he was raised in a secular household. The article also says that “while Obama has Muslim roots, he has declared himslf a Christian…” which is a weaselly way to put it. No one ever says that GWB “declares himself a Christian.” They just say he’s a Christian. Why shouldn’t Obama get the same courtesy. It’s insulting to qualify it that way.

This stuff is coming up so often that I’m starting to get the feeling Obama is going to be annihilated in November.

If one in ten voters believes this nonsense it’ll outweigh anything else that happens during the campaign.

Yep. This is a classic illustration of the difference between having an open mind and having an empty hole in your head.