In Reply: Breasts Come in Pairs, Busts, Not So Much, Part 2

In reply to the following comment at the post: White House clarifies on Churchill bust - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room:

Count the Ways, 7/28/12, 01:22 AM in reply to repsac3:

"Nope you got it completely wrong as liberals do. What happened was Romney said:

""I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again," the presumptive GOP nominee told people at a fundraiser Thursday night."

NOTE Romney said OVAL OFFICE

The Obama administration and this author then CHANGED Romney's words to:
"While on his overseas trip in London, Romney vowed to return the bust to the White House"

Note THEY changed the words to WHITE HOUSE. Why did they do this? So they could then ridicule Romney when they said:

"Pfeiffer knocked reports the bust had been removed and added a photo of President Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, taken during the British leader's 2010 visit, looking at the bust to prove it's in the White House. "This is 100 percent false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room," Pfeiffer wrote.."

So the reality is that the Obama Administration was caught in a lie, with the assistance of this author."
---

If you believe the whole of thise meme concerns Romney and what he said, I'm glad you're satisfied... You are correct that this article misquotes Romney. He did say "Oval Office" rather than "White House." [...And yes, Pfeiffer either lied, or was just as uninformed about the second bust as everyone else seemingly was, and really believed that the one in the residence was the same one that used to be in the Oval Office. (Keeping in mind that he more'n'likely wasn't the one who packed up the loaner Churchill, or got the gift Churchill out of storage, either. If you you believe there's only one, and you've seen it there outside the Treaty Room with your own eyes, then the people saying it had been sent back to England are obviously mistaken... right?)]

But if you look, though, I didn't mention Romney once in my earlier comment. I'm looking at the whole story, which has been floating around since Feb, 2009, and that seems to be based on a simple sit-com twist--not one Churchill bust, but two--and a whole lotta misplaced animosity toward the current president. YMMV...

(Besides, even though you're right about what Romney said, I suspect that the secret service protecting President Obama in January, 2013 will frown on former Governer Mitt Romney sneaking into the Oval Office with a bust of Churchill that he stole from England back when he was there for the 2012 Olympics under his jacket, even if his intent is to just place it on a shelf somewhere and tiptoe back out.) ((With a h/t to a commenter at Outside The Beltway, who said it first.))

--
Edited for clarity (mostly, though I did add that bit about what Pfeiffer said, as well) at 7:00am (I was having issues with my iPad at 2:00am, but saved intended edit for when I got back home to my desktop)

---
Posted 7/28/12, 1:57 AM (though like I said, there were some edits made at 7:00 AM)

In Reply: Breasts Come in Pairs, Busts, Not So Much, Part 1

In reply to White House clarifies on Churchill bust - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

So the real story is, the Churchill bust on loan to the Bush administration and displayed in the Oval Office was returned at the conclusion of his Presidency--exactly like it was supposed to be--and was replaced in the Oval Office by a bust of one of the great American (and Republican) Presidents in our history, and that the Obama administration ALSO went to the trouble of locating and displaying the Churchill bust the White House received as a gift back in the 1970's... ...and that these facts are supposed to somehow "prove" that Obama has no respect for Winston Churchill or for England...

Is that the meme some folks are trying to sell?
---

Posted 7/28/12, 12:30 AM

In Reply: Two Heads Are NOT Always Better (For one thing, they confuse folks...)

Two comments in reply to Guess What? The Churchill Bust Is Still In The White House (Or At Least One Of Them Is):

“And I’m looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again,” Romney said, evoking applause from the group that helped the candidate raise more than $2 million for his campaign."

If R-money is elected, he won’t have to add anything. He’ll be a bust in the Oval Office all on his own.

Glad to see the great mystery was solved, however. Churchill never left, AND he was returned to England, as well. Imagine what the rumormongers could’ve done with a third Churchill bust. (WinChurch#3 would most likely be stuck in a closet somewhere with whole bunch of circa 2001 keyboards with missing “W” keys.)
---
Posted Friday, July 27, 2012 at 18:37

Y’know… This revelation about there being two Churchill busts elicits more questions than it answers… Where was the Nixon-era bust while the Bush-era bust was in the Oval Office? Were both on display in different places in the White House, or is the truth that, rather than Obama removing a Churchill bust and thereby showing his distain for the man, the Brits, , etc, he (or the staff, obviously) actually went to the trouble of getting the older bust out of storage and putting it on display, showing his admiration for the man and his country?

Enquiring mind want to know… (OK, not really… except in the sense that this silly Churchill meme that was being packaged and sold by these folks may turn out to show the exact opposite of what they hoped to show… I do loves me that kinda irony…)
---
Posted Friday, July 27, 2012 at 19:05

In Reply: The Answer to Speech is More Speech

Revised and extended, in reply to No More Mister Nice Blog: WHAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME OF THE WAR WE MAY BE STARTING HERE?, about Chick-fil-A, and the aldermen and mayors making threats to use their political power and legal means to keep them out of their area:

It's one thing to say "don't eat there" (or even to say "I'm opposed to your setting up shop in my city," though that's right on the line). It's another to use political/legal might to forbid them from doing business in a particular city/town...

If they were stopping gay folks from eating or working there--which I'm pretty sure is ALREADY against the law--I could see trying to run them out of town unless they stopped doing that.

But really, all the guy did was express the opinion of his faith which, like it or not, sees homosexuality as a sin. While I don't share that opinion myself, and will do all I can to avoid financially or otherwise rewarding those who believe and express it, religious freedom and the right of conscience allow him his beliefs, just as they allow me mine.

One has to meet speech with speech and action with action, which is to say, as long as Chick-fil-A and their CEO is using speech--talking about his beliefs, donating to political and religious organizations in furtherance of his beliefs--political figures should respond the same way; speaking out, and donating/urging donations to organizations and groups in favor of his/her goals. Chick-fil-A has every right to speak, and should not face official government punishment for what they say.

If Chick-fil-A were violating anti-discrimination laws, THAT would be the time for government action. I am aware of no evidence that they are, though the company must be aware that many eyes will be on them and that it isn't only the right who engages in video stings.

Nothing prevents citizens (including elected officials) from speaking out or protesting in favor of or against marriage equality or any other issue. Companies who take a stand on controversial issues--even if they do nothing more than send out a press release--have to know they're going to gain some customers and lose others, whatever stands they take. There is nothing wrong with "voting your values" by spending more money with companies who share your values and less with those who do not. If money is speech, there's no reason yours shouldn't help you say the things you think need saying.

As an exit question, though... How is what these mayors are threatening to do ANY DIFFERENT from what certain republican legislators and governors are doing as regards abortion providers, setting up trap laws that regulate every aspect of the clinics and providers in such a way that they cannot meet them, and thus will have no choice but to close... The answer, of course, is that there's ZERO difference, except that these Republican governors and legislators have actually done what these anti-chickfila mayors are only threatening to do, even if some people choose to stick their fingers in their ears in a desperate attempt at willful misunderstanding and denial...

Finally, there is a line between religious beliefs and bigotry, on both sides of this issue.

As I said above, the interviews Dan Cathy gave expressed his support for the religious tenets of his faith. While my faith and my personal moral compass don't agree with those tenets, he didn't say anything hateful or bigoted. (I have since learned about donations Cathy and the Chick-fil-A corporation have made to more extreme anti-homosexual causes, whose stated beliefs and concrete actions go further than much of Cathy's religion has chosen to go, and yes, I do find those donations more problematic.)

On the other hand, not every person who speaks out against Chick-fil-A is an anti-Judeo-Christian bigot, either. It is possible to say "I disagree with the church on this issue" without actually hating God and everything Jesus stood for. Even being an atheist isn't an expression of hate. (Some folks claim it's another kind of faith, and thus should be protected by religious freedom.)

As I've said elsewhere, I have no problem with 99% of what faiths other than mine preach and teach. People can believe as they wish, and live according to the customs of their faith, with my blessings. The tolerance stops when you try to legislate aspects of your faith into secular law, forcing those to don't share your church's understanding of God and morality to nevertheless live as though they do. It's fine for individuals to choose to live according to what their Bible and preacher tells them. It's also fine for individuals--especially individuals who don't go to your church--to reject the teachings of your Bible and preacher, whether in favor of what their preacher teaches, or in favor of their own moral code. Religious freedom goes both ways.
---

Posted THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2012, 7:23 PM