It wouldn’t have been in the cards for most liberal politicians either back then, I suspect.
Do you think these people were protesting the fact that we have an executive mansion?
It doesn’t really matter to me what they were protesting. They were failing to offer deference and I support failures to offer deference, especially in a manner that is neither destructive nor disruptive. If it was a juvenile act in bad taste, all the better, given that juvenile acts in bad taste are usually harmless.
It doesn’t matter how many times you say this, it doesn’t make it true.
This was not an issue of “failing to offer deference”. This was an issue of choosing to offer insult.
If anyone had been told they were supposed to bow their heads while they walked by Reagan’s portrait, I would support their decision not to do so. But that isn’t what happened and let’s not pretend that’s what happened.
It really doesn’t make a difference to me. I am all for insulting Reagan’s portrait or the White House or whatthefuckever as a subset of ways to fail to defer to symbols of authority.
But I don’t even really accept that it was an insult to anyone. It was a picture of someone flipping off a painting. There wasn’t any actual person there to insult. You can’t insult inanimate objects, particularly objects that aren’t any particular person’s personal property.
It was pure political speech, nondestructive, nondisruptive, and not even done in the within the view of any authoritative person. The people in the picture told no untruth about Reagan and actually didn’t say anything mean about him. It was a gesture expressing “I don’t like what this portrait stands for” in a pure and simple way.
I not only accept such an act, I encourage it, I applaud it, I laud it. What they did was not only something that should not be criticized. It should be praised. More political expression should have these qualities.
And taking a photo of it and posting it on facebook. Because they wanted to stir some shit.
They made a sophomoric political statement at an event that abused Obama’s goodwill. They’re classless, and the stupid photos help the right and hurt the left, because they make the left look sophomoric and classless.
No. To express “I don’t like what this portrait stands for” in a pure and simple way, you merely articulate the phrase “I don’t like what this portrait stands for”.
See? Pure. Simple.
Publicly making a gesture to the portrait that stands for the words “Fuck You”, during a formal visit to the official seat of the executive branch of the federal government, and then broadcasting pictures of yourself in that act on the internet, is expressing “I don’t like what this portrait stands for” in a rude, obscene and stupid way.
Good heavens, I hope you guys don’t find out about the YMCA crucifixion picture. You may pop a blood vessel.
The right will always find a way to have a fit over something. You will never succeed in self-censoring to the point that they won’t find something to latch on to. All you will succeed is in turning yourself into a disingenuous, po-faced fool.
As for “rude, obscene, and stupid.”
Obscene – Purportedly obscene expressions of political opinion are fine with me.
Stupid – that’s debatable. I think there are good reasons for people to want to flip off portraits of politicians.
Rude – I disagree that it was rude. As I said before, they didn’t do it to an actual person’s face, they didn’t damage any physical property, and they didn’t disrupt any ongoing program or speech. They didn’t do it in any person’s actual personal residence and they didn’t do it to any person’s actual personal property.
Moreover, if I believed that Obama himself was actually personally offended by what happened, then I think he’s a self-important prig. The only rational and reasonable response would be to chuckle over it and move on.
Flipping the bird is more elegant, succinct, and poetic. And it can be done in a non-verbal format, taking less time, and allowing it to be transmitted as a still photograph. It’s more expressive and more efficient than the words “I don’t like what this portrait stands for.” And it’s also funnier. So, flipping the bird gets all the points there.
(Inner Stickler) - If the YMCA guys were atheists or Muslims invited to the White House, because the administration wanted an event to symbolize that they respect all religious stripes, and the atheists/Muslims took the YMCA picture in the White House with a crucifixion painting hanging there, then yeah, I’d probably pop a blood vessel.
Dude, they took a picture of themselves goofing off. If it gets up your nose, that’s no one’s problem but yours.
Gay sex is so weird. Only a little got up my nose.
Made me lol, seriously! 
Certainly not a classy act and wish they hadn’t done it, but given the history, somewhat understandable. At least they didn’t do it to his face.
So many GOPers see Reagan as godlike, but someone espousing his policies and showing his geniality to Democrats wouldn’t have made it past Iowa in the GOP primaries.
And the Band Played on:
Edit:
Where they there for an official function? Then yes, that would be inappropriate.
Like I said, IF these people had done it while on some kind of tourist thingy, then no big deal. It’s the fact that it was done during an official, invited event that it was inappropriate.
Context, people, context.
Can’t wait to see how much of a “no biggie” this is when the image is used by those fighting against the expansion of some gay rights initiative on a ballot somewhere. And it will be. But we’ll all just have to wait and see, won’t we?
I take it you’ve never worked in politics. If indeed this is bad publicity, then obviously there’s absolutely to advantage in “the gay community” (whatever the fuck that is) directing eyeballs to it.
Fortunately for “the gay community”, the only demographic that this issue resonates with appears to be the SDMB, and I don’t think any gay organization was all that worried about making sure to capture the Doper concern troll demographic.
[QUOTE=Ascenray]
The right will always find a way to have a fit over something. You will never succeed in self-censoring to the point that they won’t find something to latch on to. All you will succeed is in turning yourself into a disingenuous, po-faced fool.
[/QUOTE]
I would like to tattoo this onto the palm of the hand of every leftist in the United States.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Where they there for an official function? Then yes, that would be inappropriate.
Like I said, IF these people had done it while on some kind of tourist thingy, then no big deal. It’s the fact that it was done during an official, invited event that it was inappropriate.
Context, people, context.
[/QUOTE]
Do you believe that if you post your juvenile, hair-splitting attempt to occupy the middle ground enough times in this thread, it’ll magically become something worth hearing, rather than just irrelevant background noise?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Can’t wait to see how much of a “no biggie” this is when the image is used by those fighting against the expansion of some gay rights initiative on a ballot somewhere. And it will be. But we’ll all just have to wait and see, won’t we?
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Yes, yes, you’re very concerned. We know. You come at this strictly due to your deep and abiding concern. You’ve been sitting under your bridge, doing nothing but feeling concerned for days.
Fortunately, between copyright law and the fact that this issue would only possibly be some sort of “indictment” in the eyes of people desperately searching for a reason to justify their pre-existing attitudes, I’m not concerned.
I’m not sure I get your meaning, but your oblique ad hominems matter not. Time will prove me correct: the image will pop up the next time an issue of gay rights or SSM is on the ballot somewhere.
As some people have already suggested, the image probably will pop up somewhere.
A much more important question, though, is whether it will actually make any substantial impact, and i rather suspect that it won’t. People like you have made clear that every single homo could genuflect in front of Reagan’s portrait and you still wouldn’t allow them equal treatment under the law. And anyone who actually supports true equality, including marriage, will be unlikely to be pushed away from their position by the actions of a couple of doofuses.
I guess it’s possible that, at the very margins, there might be a few dunderheads (i’m talking about count-'em-on-one-hand numbers here) who might have their vote swayed by this incident, but that’s probably the extent of it.