Muslim Barack Obama fans told to hide from television camera

[Morilore]

The bullshit levels in this thread are extremely high.

I'm not saying that she necessarily has that ideology. All I'm saying is that she's wearing the symbol of an ideology - an ideology that disagrees with Obama's message.

No, she's wearing a headscarf. A piece of cloth around her head. An article of clothing - slash - fashion accessory used by lots of different people with different ideologies around the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... y_laws.svg

If you look at how nations with a Muslim majority tend to have the most violent and hateful laws against homosexuality, wearing a scarf that says "I believe in the Islamic ideology", definitely sends an anti-homosexual message.

Although a better metaphor would have had the T-shirt saying "Westboro Baptist Church" without any specific message from the church, the point still stands.

Except it doesn't say "I believe in the Islamic ideology," it says "I am a Muslim women who likes to put cloth around my head." Tell me, should Obama shun supporters who wear crosses around their necks? After all, people kill and abuse others and all sorts of bullshit in the name of Jesus Christ.

Except he wasn't saying that they had to move. They just had to take off their headscarfs.

Read the article again. One of them was told to take off her headscarf, the other was told to just leave.

[The Spartan]

All I'm saying is that she's wearing the symbol of an ideology - an ideology that disagrees with Obama's message.

Nitpick: she wasn't wearing a symbol of an ideology. She was wearing a garment that vaguely resembled what has become a symbol of an ideolgy enough that simple minded fuck heads started whining about it.

[General Zod]

I'm not saying that she necessarily has that ideology. All I'm saying is that she's wearing the symbol of an ideology - an ideology that disagrees with Obama's message.

So does Christianity. So how come Christians weren't asked to remove their crosses?

If you look at how nations with a Muslim majority tend to have the most violent and hateful laws against homosexuality, wearing a scarf that says "I believe in the Islamic ideology", definitely sends an anti-homosexual message.

You've never read the Bible before have you?

Although a better metaphor would have had the T-shirt saying "Westboro Baptist Church" without any specific message from the church, the point still stands.

The WBC is NOT a religion. It is a denomination at best, making your comparison invalid. Try again.

Except he wasn't saying that they had to move. They just had to take off their headscarfs.

If they were turning away people because the weren't wearing a religious symbol of some kind would you be so casually dismissing it?

[CaptainZoidberg]

No, she's wearing a headscarf. A piece of cloth around her head. An article of clothing - slash - fashion accessory used by lots of different people with different ideologies around the world.

Yet we all know that she was asked to remove it because it's generally regarded as a symbol of being Muslim. And Obama doesn't want his campaign to be associated with Islam, so he asked her to take the scarf off.

Except it doesn't say "I believe in the Islamic ideology," it says "I am a Muslim women who likes to put cloth around my head." Tell me, should Obama shun supporters who wear crosses around their necks? After all, people kill and abuse others and all sorts of bullshit in the name of Jesus Christ.

If Obama wanted people to remove their crosses than I don't think there would be anything ethically questionable about that. It's his campaign, and he has a certain ideology. If someone else is wearing the symbol of an ideology that he wants to distance himself from, I don't see the problem.

Read the article again. One of them was told to take off her headscarf, the other was told to just leave.

Well, then it was illegal for the Obama campaign to tell the one person to leave.

[Morilore]

Yet we all know that she was asked to remove it because it's generally regarded as a symbol of being Muslim. And Obama doesn't want his campaign to be associated with Islam, so he asked her to take the scarf off.

Obama wants his campaign to be associated with unity, and part of unity is multiculturalism. That's why his spokesman denounced the volunteers who did this thing of their own volition:

Campaign spokesman Bill Burton said: "This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run.

"We sincerely apologise for the behaviour of these volunteers."

Your reading comprehension skills are appallingly bad.

[General Zod]

Yet we all know that she was asked to remove it because it's generally regarded as a symbol of being Muslim. And Obama doesn't want his campaign to be associated with Islam, so he asked her to take the scarf off.

Are you even trying to stay consistent? Obama's not the one who asked her, it was one of his retarded staffers.

If Obama wanted people to remove their crosses than I don't think there would be anything ethically questionable about that. It's his campaign, and he has a certain ideology. If someone else is wearing the symbol of an ideology that he wants to distance himself from, I don't see the problem.

Is your head really shoved that far up your ass, or are you just not paying attention? Any campaign basing itself on a message of unity that excludes "unpopular" religions from rallies is conveying the exact opposite of this message. How difficult is this to grasp?

[CaptainZoidberg]

So does Christianity. So how come Christians weren't asked to remove their crosses?

I guess Obama doesn't find the Christian ideology to be a political liability.

You've never read the Bible before have you?

Where did I claim that he didn't have the right to remove Christians? In my own analogy, I said that Obama would be justified in removing someone wearing a T-shirt with a slogan from the Westboro baptist church.

The WBC is NOT a religion. It is a denomination at best, making your comparison invalid. Try again.

So if they told her to remove the head-scarf because she belonged to some sub-category of Islam you wouldn't be bothered at all?

If they were turning away people because the weren't wearing a religious symbol of some kind would you be so casually dismissing it?

Yes. If I wanted everyone to be seen in the show with my speech to be a Christian, then that would be an idiotic move, and would send a very bad message about my ideology, but it wouldn't be unethical in and of itself.

[General Zod]

I guess Obama doesn't find the Christian ideology to be a political liability.

Except Obama's not the one who asked you retard.

Where did I claim that he didn't have the right to remove Christians? In my own analogy, I said that Obama would be justified in removing someone wearing a T-shirt with a slogan from the Westboro baptist church.

You understand the definition of "hypocrisy", yes? Would you like me to include a Merriam-Webster link?

So if they told her to remove the head-scarf because she belonged to some sub-category of Islam you wouldn't be bothered at all?

Way to fail at reading comprehension.

Yes. If I wanted everyone to be seen in the show with my speech to be a Christian, then that would be an idiotic move, and would send a very bad message about my ideology, but it wouldn't be unethical in and of itself.

Except NOBODY IS ARGUING ETHICS YOU BRAINDEAD FUCKWIT. What part of this do you not comprehend? Should I illustrate in crayon to make myself more clear?

[Glocksman]

Some clarification regarding the OP.

It wasn't Obama Campaign paid staffers who asked the women to move, it was a volunteer who asked them to move.

Source

At a rally for Senator Barack Obama in Detroit on Monday, two Muslim women said they were prohibited from sitting behind the candidate because they were wearing head scarves and campaign volunteers did not want them to appear with him in news photographs or live television coverage.

Campaigns don't have the degree of control over volunteers that they have over paid staff, so the volunteer almost certainly acted on his own instead of being directed to exclude Muslims by a campaign staffer.

If Michelle Malkin went nuts over Rachael Ray wearing a scarf, imagine the PSH from her upon seeing a pic of 'OMG Mooselimb terrarists!'at an Obama rally.

Heck, she might have broken down live on FOX.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

How about you fuck off and ram your strawman up your ass until you can actually address my point? That being any campaign basing itself on unity and trying to separate people based on religion is blatantly contradicting itself and sending the exact opposite message it's intending to?

Would you rather he sent the message "Don't elect me. No, seriously, vote for McCain out of fear."?

Some of my friends in the OC Atheist group, who are often about as leftist as you can get in the US, still have doubts about Obama just because they've been so inundated with that "secret Muslim" crap. If they'd seen a couple of headscarves in his rally, they would just stay home in Nov.

Now extrapolate this to the rest of the country, most of whom are completely ignorant of what the candidates actually stand for (I doubt your average voter even gives a shit about inclusiveness), and you'll get a lot of "secret Muslim" backlash and lose the election.

So, we can stand up for the principle of unity and lose the election, plunging America into an even deeper hole of corruption, debt and unaccountability, or Obama's staffers can bite the bullett and ask a few people to move because they'll hurt his chances. Strawman or not, we're talking about real consequences.

[General Zod]

Would you rather he sent the message "Don't elect me. No, seriously, vote for McCain out of fear."?

Some of my friends in the OC Atheist group, who are often about as leftist as you can get in the US, still have doubts about Obama just because they've been so inundated with that "secret Muslim" crap. If they'd seen a couple of headscarves in his rally, they would just stay home in Nov.

Now extrapolate this to the rest of the country, most of whom are completely ignorant of what the candidates actually stand for (I doubt your average voter even gives a shit about inclusiveness), and you'll get a lot of "secret Muslim" backlash and lose the election.

So, we can stand up for the principle of unity and lose the election, plunging America into an even deeper hole of corruption, debt and unaccountability, or Obama's staffers can bite the bullett and ask a few people to move because they'll hurt his chances. Strawman or not, we're talking about real consequences.

The problem with this is that you assume any idiot retarded enough to change their vote because they saw a Muslim in the audience would have been likely to give voting for Obama serious consideration anyway.

[Kanastrous]

Do we no longer recognize the category of "swing voter?"

Of course there are fence-sitter who can be swayed by this sort of thing.

[Morilore]

Would you rather he sent the message "Don't elect me. No, seriously, vote for McCain out of fear."?

Some of my friends in the OC Atheist group, who are often about as leftist as you can get in the US, still have doubts about Obama just because they've been so inundated with that "secret Muslim" crap. If they'd seen a couple of headscarves in his rally, they would just stay home in Nov.

Now extrapolate this to the rest of the country, most of whom are completely ignorant of what the candidates actually stand for (I doubt your average voter even gives a shit about inclusiveness), and you'll get a lot of "secret Muslim" backlash and lose the election.

So, we can stand up for the principle of unity and lose the election, plunging America into an even deeper hole of corruption, debt and unaccountability, or Obama's staffers can bite the bullett and ask a few people to move because they'll hurt his chances. Strawman or not, we're talking about real consequences.

That's exactly the logic that turned the Democrats into a farce of an opposition party. Fuck over minorities for fear of Republican rhetoric. Embrace militarism for fear of being labeled unpatriotic. Turn right for fear of being called ultra-left. In the longer view, if no one has the courage to break the cycle, the rightists will always be able to control the official leftists this way.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

The problem with this is that you assume any idiot retarded enough to change their vote because they saw a Muslim in the audience would have been likely to give voting for Obama serious consideration anyway.

Dude, I just told you I know several such idiots, many of whom claim to be well-educated rational thinkers. Hell, even my own mother and brother are practically fence sitters who are only, just-barely gonna vote for Obama because I harangue them weekly over how bad a choice McCain would be. They're really just looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama, any excuse it seems...

[Bob the Gunslinger]

That's exactly the logic that turned the Democrats into a farce of an opposition party. Fuck over minorities for fear of Republican rhetoric. Embrace militarism for fear of being labeled unpatriotic. Turn right for fear of being called ultra-left. In the longer view, if no one has the courage to break the cycle, the rightists will always be able to control the official leftists this way.

Okay, so you're saying that by not losing the election one way, we're going to lose it another?
I don't see how playing the Kerry card and not trying to counter the "Muslimboating" of the right will be any more effective than Kerry's inaction against the swiftboaters.
If Obama's staff using a little bit of image-consciousness is going to alienate Obama's hardcore supporters, then I doubt he could have won the election anyway. I suppose he shouldn't make any effort to convince the swing voters that they can trust him since he doesn't need them...right?

[General Zod]

Dude, I just told you I know several such idiots, many of whom claim to be well-educated rational thinkers. Hell, even my own mother and brother are practically fence sitters who are only, just-barely gonna vote for Obama because I harangue them weekly over how bad a choice McCain would be. They're really just looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama, any excuse it seems...

Which is precisely why appeasement is a shitty tactic for garnering votes. These type of knuckle-dragging retards will go out of their way to find a reason not to vote if they really don't want him in. Which is why fretting over something completely trivial such as whether a Muslim is in the audience at a rally will offend them is absurd.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Except Obama's not the one who asked you retard.

I must have read that wrong, my apologies.

You understand the definition of "hypocrisy", yes? Would you like me to include a Merriam-Webster link?

If Christian and Muslim ideologies/practices were identical, then yes, it would be hypocritical.

Except NOBODY IS ARGUING ETHICS YOU BRAINDEAD FUCKWIT. What part of this do you not comprehend? Should I illustrate in crayon to make myself more clear?

So then is the argument about what would best benefit his campaign?

[General Zod]

I must have read that wrong, my apologies.

Or you didn't read it at all. The article is very clear about who asked what.

If Christian and Muslim ideologies/practices were identical, then yes, it would be hypocritical.

It doesn't matter that they're identical. What matters is the reason that they're being turned away which runs counter to a message of unity.

So then is the argument about what would best benefit his campaign?

I explained what my fucking point was multiple times throughout the whole goddamned thread. You clearly lack the ability to read, but I'll repeat it anyway. By making a campaign based on unity, doing things that run against that damage the campaign's image and credibility. Is this simple enough or should I try using mono-syllable words?

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Those "knuckle dragging retards" are both left-of-center Democrats who hate Bush with a fiery passion. If the whole Muslimboat thing is a big deal to them, I don't see how you can possibly expect it not to matter to the huge majority of American voters who are not leftist Democrats.

I can tell you one thing they don't give a shit about: if one of Obama's aids steps on the toes of some of his less considerate supporters (seriously, they might be fans of his, but how did they possibly think they were helping his campaign?) in order to avoid giving the news its next "Rev Wright" videobite with which to smear Obama. Hell, I doubt they'll even hear about it, but I know they'd see the images of Obama mit Muslims plastered all over all the major networks 24/7 if he'd had them in the photo.

What Obama's aids did may not be right, but in this election I think we have to keep in mind that the greatest evil evident so far would be allowing McCain to win.

[Morilore]

Okay, so you're saying that by not losing the election one way, we're going to lose it another?

No, I'm saying that someone has to set an example of a Democrat winning without bowing to the slightest breeze of Republican propaganda.

I don't see how playing the Kerry card and not trying to counter the "Muslimboating" of the right will be any more effective than Kerry's inaction against the swiftboaters.
If Obama's staff using a little bit of image-consciousness is going to alienate Obama's hardcore supporters, then I doubt he could have won the election anyway. I suppose he shouldn't make any effort to convince the swing voters that they can trust him since he doesn't need them...right?

"Action" would constitute denouncing such rumors swiftly and harshly, which Obama does and of which I approve. "Action" does not mean "instute policies anathema to your core message to appease your political enemies."
And by the way, Kerry lost because he was uncharismatic and the country was not yet sufficiently war-weary, not because he made this or that tactical mistake. You cannot accuse Obama of being uncharismatic.

[Morilore]

Those "knuckle dragging retards" are both left-of-center Democrats who hate Bush with a fiery passion. If the whole Muslimboat thing is a big deal to them, I don't see how you can possibly expect it not to matter to the huge majority of American voters who are not leftist Democrats.

What exactly makes them left-of-center? And hating Bush isn't as much a mark of political exceptionality as it used to be, since a solid majority of people in this country hate Bush and yet most of them are still idiots.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Those "knuckle dragging retards" are both left-of-center Democrats who hate Bush with a fiery passion. If the whole Muslimboat thing is a big deal to them, I don't see how you can possibly expect it not to matter to the huge majority of American voters who are not leftist Democrats.

What exactly makes them left-of-center?

They support the rights of gay couples to marry, support socialized healthcare, support the right of a woman to choose, support raising taxes on the wealthiest 10% to pay for infrastructure, want us out of Iraq, believe that Americans should not be spied upon or wire-tapped. The only thing they aren't completely left on is gun control...and also they fear terrorism because the news tells them to.

If you can provide some evidence that most of Obama's supporters, or even a large portion of them, support him because of "unity" and not his other policies, either social or economic, then I will have to concede.

Maybe that's why he's so popular, but that is not what I see in his support base as being the most important factor, or even in the top 5 important factors for supporting Obama.

[Morilore]

If you can provide some evidence that most of Obama's supporters, or even a large portion of them, support him because of "unity" and not his other policies, either social or economic, then I will have to concede.

Maybe that's why he's so popular, but that is not what I see in his support base as being the most important factor, or even in the top 5 important factors for supporting Obama.

It is my understanding that most of Obama's supporters support him because he is charismatic. I have read people on this very board who, whenever praising Obama, pant breathlessly of his ability to speak eloquently and movingly. Being at work right now, I really shouldn't take more time off to do research of this type, though.

[CaptainZoidberg]

I explained what my fucking point was multiple times throughout the whole goddamned thread. You clearly lack the ability to read, but I'll repeat it anyway. By making a campaign based on unity, doing things that run against that damage the campaign's image and credibility. Is this simple enough or should I try using mono-syllable words?

Oh, I was arguing the case that it was ethically permissible for Obama to remove people who wore headscarfs.

If your case is that it harms his campaign to remove these people, then I have to agree since Obama himself criticized the volunteers removing Muslims.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

If your case is that it harms his campaign to remove these people, then I have to agree since Obama himself criticized the volunteers removing Muslims.

How does that prove anything? Clearly it is in his best interests to have his aids control his image by asking people behind him to remove their veils, for instance, so that he has plausible deniability. Then he can come swooping in and criticize his aids for their inconsiderate action and thus deflect all of the blame while reaping all of the benefits of having his aids watch his back. This is probably the best possible outcome, even better than if he had let them sit in the photo in the first place.
It is a classic win-win situation.