NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is for the Clinton vs Obama race, whether the missing states should be counted, etc. Comment on general issues goes here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=554116) and polls and number-crunching goes here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13602779#post13602779).

I have merged it with an existing thread by The Atlantian Islands to keep the forum clutter down. What follows -- and the poll -- is TAI's original post.
_________________________________________________________________


Obama has recently made a comment that has shocked the nation, with Republicans and Democrats alike complaining about it the potential political suicide something like that could have for his campaign. While meeting with very very wealthy California Obama campaign donors in a very very wealthy part of Northern California around San Francisco, Obama said this about small town America:

Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Here's a report on the implications and the story itself. Personally I think the setting and the audience he said this to made the matter probably...at a conservative guess, 2904830292 times worse.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain both ripped into Barack Obama Friday for reportedly saying residents of small-town America “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” out of bitterness over lost jobs.

His opponents interpreted the remarks as arrogant, but Obama stood by the statement Friday and even elaborated on the argument that many people in small towns are bitter and frustrated with the status quo in Washington.

Obama made the original comments while speaking to a group of wealthy California donors in San Francisco over the weekend. The Huffington Post quotes him specifically singling out towns in Pennsylvania, where he’s trying to woo voters and overcome Clinton’s lead in the polls before the state’s April 22 primary.

“Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The comments, which can also be heard in an audio recording later posted on the Huffington Web site, immediately became fodder for the campaigns of Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, and McCain, his potential Republican challenger.

“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them. They need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them,” Clinton said Friday afternoon at a campaign stop in Philadelphia. She said the Pennsylvanians she’s met aren’t bitter, but “resilient” and “positive.”

McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called Obama’s statement “remarkable” and “extremely revealing.”

“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” Schmidt said. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president of the United States who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

Schmidt also said it shows Obama views the people he’s trying to relate to with “contempt.”

Obama directly addressed the growing furor Friday at a campaign stop in Indiana. Many working-class people have lost jobs to overseas operations, lost their pensions, lost their health care and haven’t gotten any help from Democrats or Republicans, he said.

“And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated,” Obama told a crowd of supporters. “You would be too — in fact many of you are, because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. … Nobody is thinking about you.”

He also said that this disillusionment with government’s inaction on economic issues makes people base their votes on other issues, such as guns, gay marriage and religion.

The response set off another round of complaints from the Clinton and McCain campaigns that Obama is out of touch with ordinary people.

Obama, who consistently leads Clinton among highly educated and wealthy voters, has tried to make up ground with middle-class America, where Clinton is strong. He has managed to score several wins in rural states like Idaho, Kansas and North Dakota.

But recent comments from him and his wife Michelle have occasionally been interpreted as too high-minded.

Michelle Obama, for instance, drew criticism in February for saying she was “proud” of her country for the first time in her adult life.
:rolleyes:(personal comment: What a fucking tool):rolleyes:

“It comes off very badly,” Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said of Obama’s small-town America remarks. “They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist, and it sounds like he’s looking down on people.”

Pennsylvania GOP Chairman Robert Gleason Jr. even weighed in, releasing a statement saying the comments “reveal a condescending elitism.”

Of course, Clinton would have a hard time arguing she’s just like those small-town Pennsylvania voters. She and her husband’s newly released tax returns showed they earned nearly $110 million since leaving the White House, compared with the Obamas’ meager millions earned in the same period.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/11/obama-draws-fire-for-comments-on-small-town-america/

I said a while ago that I didn't mind Obama because I liked that he was shaking up our politics, offering some new views and I generally think he's a good person that wants to do some good. My problem with him has always been not that I don't like him, but that I simply don't agree with him over what government should and should not do. What the basis of government is for.

However recently, the whole thing with Rev. Wright who Obama admits is his spiritual advisor and family friend, amongst lying to people about free-trade and protectionism with NAFTA, and now this terribly stupid statement, is making me just give Obama a big ":rolleyes:"...

do you think that its NOT true that a segment of the country has been left behind by both parties? that they have been made promises for the past 20 years that no one has even tried to keep?

do you think that they ARENT bitter and cynical about being screwed over by both parties for so long?

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/8balldoomed.jpg

do you think that its NOT true that a segment of the country has been left behind by both parties? that they have been made promises for the past 20 years that no one has even tried to keep?
Thay may be true, but it's not the point of the debate at all. Read the OP again.

*snip*
Come on...that was stupid. Contribute something useful, I've see you do it before so I know you can. State your opinion.

Every time there's some big SNAFU over something Obama (or anyone that ever stood within 10 ft. of the man) has said, the excuses to attack him get flimsier.

What's next? "OBAMA'S NIECE ENDED A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION! WHO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TURN TO?"?

Isn't that the thesis of that book "What's the Matter with Kansas" (or some name similar to that)? I mean, the argument that people are voting against their "economic interest" as part of the so-called culture war is not a new one. Actual, electable politicians have never voiced this point of view, because it comes across as degrading.

do you think that its NOT true that a segment of the country has been left behind by both parties? that they have been made promises for the past 20 years that no one has even tried to keep?

do you think that they ARENT bitter and cynical about being screwed over by both parties for so long?


lol, when was the last time a politician lived up to their campaign promises?

Honest politicians are the stuff of TV and Movies man

I could be a good politician, but too many would cry about me bringing compulsory military service back into action - too many americans would cry they cant bring their console games like Wii and stuff with them

Come on...that was stupid. Contribute something useful, I've see you do it before so I know you can. State your opinion.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/locked.gif

Thay may be true, but it's not the point of the debate at all. Read the OP again.

tl dr

so your point is that even though its TRUE he shouldnt mention it?

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/locked.gif
?
Every time there's some big SNAFU over something Obama (or anyone that ever stood within 10 ft. of the man) has said, the excuses to attack him get flimsier.

What's next? "OBAMA'S NIECE ENDED A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION! WHO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TURN TO?"?
Not funny but nice way of totally ignoring the issue raised in the OP. Whether or not it's important to you and people in your country hardly matters, because back here, where God pays attention, it is all over the media and an issue of debate.

lol, when was the last time a politician lived up to their campaign promises?

Honest politicians are the stuff of TV and Movies man

I could be a good politician, but too many would cry about me bringing compulsory military service back into action - too many americans would cry they cant bring their console games like Wii and stuff with them

That's because compulsory military service is nothing short of government-enforced kidnapping. People have the right not to go a-killing for an abstract concept. And as the world evolves, compulsory military service will vanish.

totally ignoring the issue raised in the OP.

that would necessitate there being an issue raised, wouldn't it?

?

Not funny but nice way of totally ignoring the issue raised in the OP. Whether or not it's important to you and people in your country hardly matters, because back here, where God pays attention, it is all over the media and an issue of debate.

The problem is, it's NOT AN ISSUE. It's a statement that likely rang true with many people. And those dumb enough to misconstrue it as an insult wouldn't vote for Obama anyways.

And what the heck do you mean "God pays attention"?

How is this news?

tl dr

so your point is that even though its TRUE he shouldnt mention it?
I don't know what tl dr means....

The point is one must have tact....that is, a filter between brain and mouth..and that is what the article is saying. I may believe that both parties have forgotten alot of mainstream Americans in the quest for power, but I'm not about to go out like an idiot saying:

"It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Alot of Americans, whether poor, rich, from Pennslyvania to California, believe in the right to bear Arms, have faith in God and have a problem with the immigration issue. To crack on mainstream American values is to show elitism and that you are out of touch with mainstream American values.

Here's the difference. During a Republican debate, they were talking about the jobs of Detroit. Romney said under his presidency he'd bring back jobs to Detroit. Naturally this was bullshit and McCain called him on it saying we can't live in the past and we have to get these people into new jobs and focus on what America is good at now, not what we were good at 25 years ago.

That's politically smart. Taking a crack at mainstream America is not. Regardless of if you believe in what he said or not.

THUS, my poll is complex cuz you can believe in some of what he said but still think it was stupid of him to say.

See?

What is this thread about?

Some comment by Obama that may be interpreted to mean several things?

I don't understand why this is important. At worst, it's a matter of Obama being a bit too naive about how his opponents will construe this, but other than that, I don't see why anyone would care that he said that.

If I were to make any comment on this, it would be about how people are making something out of nothing.

that would necessitate there being an issue raised, wouldn't it?
Perhaps under your rock there isn't but out here in the real world where, for better or worse, the political media makes things an issue, it's an issue.
The problem is, it's NOT AN ISSUE. It's a statement that likely rang true with many people. And those dumb enough to misconstrue it as an insult wouldn't vote for Obama anyways.

And what the heck do you mean "God pays attention"?
See above.
How is this news?
See above.

I don't know what tl dr means....

The point is one must have tact....that is, a filter between brain and mouth..and that is what the article is saying. I may believe that both parties have forgotten alot of mainstream Americans in the quest for power, but I'm not about to go out like an idiot saying:

"It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Alot of Americans, whether poor, rich, from Pennslyvania to California, believe in the right to bear Arms, have faith in God and have a problem with the immigration issue. To crack on mainstream American values is to show elitism and that you are out of touch with mainstream American values.

Here's the difference. During a Republican debate, they were talking about the jobs of Detroit. Romney said under his presidency he'd bring back jobs to Detroit. Naturally this was bullshit and McCain called him on it saying we can't live in the past and we have to get these people into new jobs and focus on what America is good at now, not what we were good at 25 years ago.

That's politically smart. Taking a crack at mainstream America is not. Regardless of if you believe in what he said or not.

THUS, my poll is complex cuz you can believe in some of what he said but still think it was stupid of him to say.

See?

its pretty hard to never say anything that cant be exerpted so that it seems to be something else.

So, the point is that Obama wasn't perfectly tactful at one point in his life?

How is this different from the other public figures who have made the occasional slip-up?

Perhaps under your rock there isn't but out here in the real world where, for better or worse, the political media makes things an issue, it's an issue.

1- My city is amongst the 60 biggest cities in the world.

2- My ideology is far, FAR more advanced than yours, which should say something about who, between us, has been living under a rock.

3- I even know enough to be able to tell, and easily, that this non-issue will blow over in about a week.

Obama has recently made a comment that has shocked the nation, with Republicans and Democrats alike complaining about it the potential political suicide something like that could have for his campaign. While meeting with very very wealthy California Obama campaign donors in a very very wealthy part of Northern California around San Francisco, Obama said this about small town America:

Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

<Cartman>What's the big fucking deal, bitch?</Cartman>

I smell some grasping at straws here...

Yes I can smell that...I can also hear colors...

So, the point is that Obama wasn't perfectly tactful at one point in his life?

How is this different from the other public figures who have made the occasional slip-up?

exactly.

this same week bill clinton said that his wife was too old and too exhausted to remember what happened that day in bosnia--ooops hope SHE doesnt get a 3am phone call. john mccain when to a speech where the man who introduced him said "let them have their tiger woods, we have john mccain" and mccain gave him a big hug leaving us to wonder what the fuck the guy meant.

odd things are said all the time by all sorts of people.

3- I even know enough to be able to tell, and easily, that this non-issue will blow over in about a week.

worse, obama effectively suckered both clinton and mccain on this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow

So, the point is that Obama wasn't perfectly tactful at one point in his life?

How is this different from the other public figures who have made the occasional slip-up?

I SEE no slip up or lack of tact. It looks like now that they can't find real controversy they're trying to invent one.

worse, obama effectively suckered both clinton and mccain on this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow

damn that man can give a speech!

worse, obama effectively suckered both clinton and mccain on this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow

The guy is skilled at political judo. The force of the opponent against themselves... :D

This is the most progressive thing I've heard him say, ever.

I stopped paying attention when the OP cite fox news as a source. Seriously, its half them trying to smear Obama just as much as it is half Hillary and McCain to bring him down.

A shame Obama will still beat them. People are growing tired of empty promises. They want hope. They want to be proud of their country for once, not ashamed of it and its actions. Obama is the only president in this race with potential to do that, plain and simple.

I don't see anything wrong with what he said. But I guess I must just be living under a rock.

American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, and I agree with it.
American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, though I agree with it.

There is no difference in meaning between these two poll options.

NON-American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, and I agree with it.
NON-American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, though I agree with it

There is no difference in meaning between these two poll options, either.

English. It's really not supposed to be that hard, you know.

American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, and I agree with it.
American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, though I agree with it.

There is no difference in meaning between these two poll options.

NON-American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, and I agree with it.
NON-American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, though I agree with it

There is no difference in meaning between these two poll options, either.

English. It's really not supposed to be that hard, you know.

So... TAI is receiving English lessons from a Swedish person now. :D

Nice! Thanks, Fass! :D

American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, and I agree with it.
American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, though I agree with it.

There is no difference in meaning between these two poll options.

NON-American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, and I agree with it.
NON-American: No it was not a stupid thing to say, though I agree with it

There is no difference in meaning between these two poll options, either.

English. It's really not supposed to be that hard, you know.

Typo. Sometimes people screw up.

Typo. Sometimes people screw up.

it kinda goes with the theme of the thread

So... TAI is receiving English lessons from a Swedish person now. :D

The rock we live under just happens to be "education", apparently.

Typo. Sometimes people screw up.

When a "screw up" is in quadruplet, it is a linguistic error, and not just a mere faute de frappe.

The rock we live under just happens to be "education", apparently.

You're on fire! ;)

A flaming ga...

Er, take it as a compliment. ;)

And those dumb enough to misconstrue it as an insult wouldn't vote for Obama anyways.

So Obama supporters are always enlightened people? That's just the kind of elitist sentiment that caused this controversy in the first place. Of course the statements he made were quite true and insightful; however, people's feelings towards a candidate, or any human being for that matter, are rarely based on cold, hard rationality. Whether or not you consider their feelings to be justified, people were offended and felt insulted by Obama's comments. Much of what is said in daily discourse provokes reactions out people not necessarily based on the content of the speech, but on the connotations it carries. To sum this all up, people are emotional creatures, and sometimes cold rationality and observance are just too harsh for people.

So Obama supporters are always enlightened people? That's just the kind of elitist sentiment that caused this controversy in the first place. Of course the statements he made were quite true and insightful; however, people's feelings towards a candidate, or any human being for that matter, are rarely based on cold, hard rationality. Whether or not you consider their feelings to be justified, people were offended and felt insulted by Obama's comments. Much of what is said in daily discourse provokes reactions out people not necessarily based on the content of the speech, but on the connotations it carries. To sum this all up, people are emotional creatures, and sometimes cold rationality and observance are just too harsh for people.

Actually it was more "those that will intentionally misinterpret Obama's remark wouldn't vote for him anyways".

-snip-To sum this all up, people are emotional creatures, and sometimes cold rationality and observance are just too harsh for people.

"Ah, yes, those poor idiotic masses! Everything must be dumbed down for them, because they're too stupid to understand reason and facts, unlike us!"

And you were calling Obama elitist (whatever sort of attack that's supposed to be)? Oh, the irony. Let me savour it. *mmmh, delicious*

If the worst thing anyone can come up with are "Obama is an elitist," "Obama's minister is a racist," and "Obama iz n eb1l moslem," then you know someone is desperately seeking 4 more years of Bushevism under McCain or Clinthulhu-

*Looks at OP*

Oh. Should have figured that from the start, heh.

I don't see anything wrong with what he said. But I guess I must just be living under a rock.

Don't knock the rock. It's nice and cozy under here. :)



Also, TAI: What IS the "Islamization of our society"? What does that mean? Can you give examples? You fled from your other thread, so I'm guessing you forgot about it...

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/locked.gif

ftw.

Isn't that the thesis of that book "What's the Matter with Kansas" (or some name similar to that)? I mean, the argument that people are voting against their "economic interest" as part of the so-called culture war is not a new one. Actual, electable politicians have never voiced this point of view, because it comes across as degrading.

Let's see, he's basically saying that when people's livelihoods are dwindling, they'll latch on to whatever makes them feel better about themselves. Religion, patriotism, race, insularity/anti-immigration -- looks to me like Obama told the truth. I find it refreshing. So refreshing in fact that I am no longer on the fence. I'm voting for Obama. When Clinton can't keep her lies straight (sniper fire that even shitty comedian Sinbad can remember not happening), and uses overstatement of her qualifications without remorse or apology, I gotta go with the guy who can tell a hard truth like that and not back down from it.

This is a guy who just might be able to tell America what other presidents were too scared to tell it -- what it needs to hear, the painful truth. If he succeeds, and if he tells those truths, and produces plans to start fixing some of them (nobody can fix it all), and doesn't get re-elected and we wind up with more of the old bullshit in 2012, I will know my country is effectively dancing to the band on the Titanic as it sinks, and it will deserve its fate.

The point is one must have tact....that is, a filter between brain and mouth..and that is what the article is saying. I may believe that both parties have forgotten alot of mainstream Americans in the quest for power, but I'm not about to go out like an idiot saying:

"It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

The problem is that "tact" has been converted into "spin" over the last few decades. How is it idiotic to tell the truth? I live in one of the least populated states in the Union and I'm telling you that this statement is CORRECT. I've seen irrational blaming and mindless bleating in action. I've talked to people who can't explain why they voted however they did beyond jingoistic talking points from TV and radio. I make a point of watching and listening to media sources from across the spectrum in order to experience what's being said, and if you want to talk arrogance and absence of tact, listen to Rush for more than 30 minutes.

A lot of Americans, whether poor, rich, from Pennslyvania to California, believe in the right to bear Arms, have faith in God and have a problem with the immigration issue. To crack on mainstream American values is to show elitism and that you are out of touch with mainstream American values.

He wasn't "cracking" on "mainstream American values" (do you even know how empty and meaningless that phrase is?), he was cracking on politicians who feed people's fears and encourage them to cling blindly to those "values" in the face of everything reality is showing them. He is cracking on adherence to slogans and mob mentalities and distractions from issues that actually affect people's lives (like gay marriage clearly DOESN'T).

Here's the difference. During a Republican debate, they were talking about the jobs of Detroit. Romney said under his presidency he'd bring back jobs to Detroit. Naturally this was bullshit and McCain called him on it saying we can't live in the past and we have to get these people into new jobs and focus on what America is good at now, not what we were good at 25 years ago.

Well goody for McCain! Has McCain tried to tell anyone that relying on old beliefs about American superiority without doing anything genuine to help the nation (like admitting when it's wrong) is the one way to make sure the nation gets worse? That's what Obama's words say to me. "Stop falling back on religion and patriotism and frightened isolationism and unilateral bullying and start realizing that there are things that must change.

That's politically smart. Taking a crack at mainstream America is not. Regardless of if you believe in what he said or not.

Seeing a crack where there is none is not smart, either. It's disingenuous and deliberately looking past Obama's meaning and trying to get the worst possible interpretation out of them. You and Karl Rove would make good friends.[/QUOTE]

I smell some grasping at straws here...

Yes I can smell that...I can also hear colors...

Ah, you're a synaesthete (http://www.bobs.com/Lyrics.cgi?Synaesthesia). Cool.

Typo. Sometimes people screw up.

Nope. Not a typo. Bad poll. Though I agree that sometimes people screw up.

If the worst thing anyone can come up with are "Obama is an elitist," "Obama's minister is a racist," and "Obama iz n eb1l moslem," then you know someone is desperately seeking 4 more years of Bushevism under McCain or Clinthulhu-
Actually, many people disagree with Obama because they don't like his idea of what government should and shouldn't do. But your toolish trolling is fun to watch, so please by all means..keep it up.


*Looks at OP*

Oh. Should have figured that from the start, heh.
Sorry, why? I must have missed the joke here.

____________________________________

And by the way, in regards to the poll. I was writing it rather quickly .....wrote an option once then copied and pasted it...wrote a differnent option and then copied and pasted it....and so I made a typo and copied and pasted it.

WOW, such a life changing error. Get over it.

So Obama supporters are always enlightened people? That's just the kind of elitist sentiment that caused this controversy in the first place. Of course the statements he made were quite true and insightful; however, people's feelings towards a candidate, or any human being for that matter, are rarely based on cold, hard rationality.

Did you type that with a straight face? "Cold, hard rationality?" Are we talking American voters here? 'Cause that's just outright bullshit. Substitute the word "spin" for "rationality", and you'd have something. Where did anyone say that Obama supporters are always enlightened? Why must you grasp at straws to try and find something wrong with a candidate? There's enough out there for every candidate that making more up seems almost childish.

For the record, it would be very easy for me to look past what you really mean and take your (underlined) words to mean that you'd RATHER be bullshitted, hyperbolized and lied to -- God help us that a candidate should be "quite true and insightful".

Whether or not you consider their feelings to be justified, people were offended and felt insulted by Obama's comments. Much of what is said in daily discourse provokes reactions out people not necessarily based on the content of the speech, but on the connotations it carries. To sum this all up, people are emotional creatures, and sometimes cold rationality and observance are just too harsh for people.

Y'know what? People can feel however they want about those comments. The truth only hurts when it should. That doesn't make the words any less true or any less worth saying if you have the guts to say them. OF COURSE people are emotional, that's what makes us human (well, except Dick Cheney and Al Gore, but that's another story). But emotions don't matter when the truth is at stake. Are we going to sit around and allow more lies and flattering propaganda to pacify us? Or are we going to make hard decisions and take a good, hard look at ourselves and decide to honestly deal with honest problems and not horseshit like flag burning, gay marriage and the pledge of allegiance?

In fact, thank you, TAI. This "glimpse into the mind of Obama" has made me appreciate the man more than I would have otherwise.

Also, TAI: What IS the "Islamization of our society"? What does that mean? Can you give examples? You fled from your other thread, so I'm guessing you forgot about it...

By "Islamization of our society" he's spreading that boogieman image that the West is scared of, where the whole world looks like Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan no matter where you go. Where all women are covered up, and where praying to anyone besides Allah gets you lashed or executed.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Yeah, pretty stupid, and I don't agree. He's basically saying that "middle America" (Republicans) disagree with him on an irrational basis. Not the case, obviously. It's possible to be anti-illegal immigration or anti-NAFTA or anti-gun control or pro-religion for your own reasons, rather than as a reaction to some hardship in your life. It's a stupid thing to say, but it won't hurt Obama.

Yeah, pretty stupid, and I don't agree. He's basically saying that "middle America" (Republicans) disagree with him on an irrational basis. Not the case, obviously. It's possible to be anti-illegal immigration or anti-NAFTA or anti-gun control or pro-religion for your own reasons, rather than as a reaction to some hardship in your life. It's a stupid thing to say, but it won't hurt Obama.

I still don't see how it's stupid. I don't think he's talking about every last person in "middle America", either. However, to deny that what he's saying actually happens is to ignore, well, my neighbors, really.

I don't really think there's much to fuss about over this, nor do I think his response was particularly effective, probably because the attacks weren't that effective.

I still don't see how it's stupid. I don't think he's talking about every last person in "middle America", either. However, to deny that what he's saying actually happens is to ignore, well, my neighbors, really.

"Stupid" isn't very helpful here, I agree. I was taking it from the poll options. It seems more an example of talk-radio-style pandering to me.

So, basically, one of NSG's known American rightwingers quoted Fox News' latest piece of rightwing spin BS and is trying desperately, like a good soldier, to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Again. Whatever. :rolleyes:

Obama's words were true. If people don't like the truth, that's not Obama's fault. Also, it is perhaps the lamest attack against him yet.

Obama's words were true. If people don't like the truth, that's not Obama's fault. Also, it is perhaps the lamest attack against him yet.

IIRC, Limbaugh attacked Obama for having big ears.

ALRIGHT ENOUGH about Fox news. It was the first article on it I found when searching for it on the web. I was watching it last night on CNN and today went online to post it on NSG.

Who the fuck cares..it's not like Fox made up the story.

Stop using it as an excuse it's getting fucking annoying. Fox news, however biased it may be, is still a credible news source that does not simply make up an article. Thus, if I post something, even from Fox news, it may have a Fox bias to it, but it doesn't mean that whatever happend simply didn't happen. So get the fuck over it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080412/ts_nm/usa_politics_dc
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/11/clinton-mccain-and-obama-all-join-this-mud-fight/?mod=WSJBlog?mod=hpp_asia_blogs
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4634836
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/11/obama_denounces_big_corporate_pay_packages/
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/04/11/2008-04-12T030439Z_01_N11166760_RTRIDST_0_USA-POLITICS-WRAPUP-4-PIX-TV.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/11/obama_expands_on_bitter_pennsy.html?hpid=topnews

Use those you bunch of whimpy kiddy baby whiners.

IIRC, Limbaugh attacked Obama for having big ears.
Point taken. There probably are many lamer, stupider, more dumb-ass things said against Obama, but I miss them because I don't listen to media clowns. ;)

ALRIGHT ENOUGH about Fox news. It was the first article on it I found when searching for it on the web. I was watching it last night on CNN and today went online to post it on NSG.

Who the fuck cares..it's not like Fox made up the story.

Stop using it as an excuse it's getting fucking annoying. Fox news, however biased it may be, is still a credible news source that does not simply make up an article. Thus, if I post something, even from Fox news, it may have a Fox bias to it, but it doesn't mean that whatever happend simply didn't happen. So get the fuck over it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080412/ts_nm/usa_politics_dc
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/11/clinton-mccain-and-obama-all-join-this-mud-fight/?mod=WSJBlog?mod=hpp_asia_blogs
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4634836
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/11/obama_denounces_big_corporate_pay_packages/
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/04/11/2008-04-12T030439Z_01_N11166760_RTRIDST_0_USA-POLITICS-WRAPUP-4-PIX-TV.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/11/obama_expands_on_bitter_pennsy.html?hpid=topnews

Use those you bunch of whimpy kiddy baby whiners.

Use them to do what -- beat you into the ground? I already knew Fox didnt' make it up, because I'd already heard the same crap from CNN and MSNBC, but it doesn't make a difference to the dumbassedness of the story. I don't care if the Holy Host descends from the clouds and sings this bullshit in full part harmony -- it's still bullshit. It means nothing. It is a non-issue.

ALRIGHT ENOUGH about Fox news. It was the first article on it I found when searching for it on the web. I was watching it last night on CNN and today went online to post it on NSG.

Who the fuck cares..it's not like Fox made up the story.

Stop using it as an excuse it's getting fucking annoying. Fox news, however biased it may be, is still a credible news source that does not simply make up an article. Thus, if I post something, even from Fox news, it may have a Fox bias to it, but it doesn't mean that whatever happend simply didn't happen. So get the fuck over it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080412/ts_nm/usa_politics_dc
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/11/clinton-mccain-and-obama-all-join-this-mud-fight/?mod=WSJBlog?mod=hpp_asia_blogs
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4634836
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/11/obama_denounces_big_corporate_pay_packages/
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reuters/2008/04/11/2008-04-12T030439Z_01_N11166760_RTRIDST_0_USA-POLITICS-WRAPUP-4-PIX-TV.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/11/obama_expands_on_bitter_pennsy.html?hpid=topnews

Use those you bunch of whimpy kiddy baby whiners.

You sound frustrated, but Mrs. Clinton tells me that you're not - she says you're optimistic and hardworking. :)

Oh, dear God. You have a candidate who will say this:


"Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

And you have one who replies with this:
“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them. They need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them,” Clinton said Friday afternoon at a campaign stop in Philadelphia. She said the Pennsylvanians she’s met aren’t bitter, but “resilient” and “positive.”

And you're seriously praising the latter and condemning the former?

One of these days I'm going to explode from sheer frustration.

IIRC, Limbaugh attacked Obama for having big ears.

So, he's against ELVES being elected President now? I wonder how he'll react when Legolas seeks the Democratic nomination someday.

Dammit. I hate it when politicians lie, but I'll be damned if I let them tell the truth!

And you're seriously praising the latter and condemning the former?

One of these days I'm going to explode from sheer positive resilience.

Fixed :)

You sound frustrated, but Mrs. Clinton tells me that you're not - she says you're optimistic and hardworking. :)
lol..touche. I giggled.

I'll break from the constant hate and arguing on NSG and say that I actually really sat back, smiled and laughed from that post.

lol, well done.

You sound frustrated, but Mrs. Clinton tells me that you're not - she says you're optimistic and hardworking. :)

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICAN VALUES?!

Fixed :)

Borat says Niiiiiiice!

And again people..I'd like to say that nowhere have I said that I think Obama was wrong...what I'm posting for debate and what, from what I can tell, much of the media is making into debate, is whether it was politically stupid for Obama to say this, even more so when combined with his recent Wright fiasco.

So everyone just calm the fuck down, relax and just take two of these and walk it out.

Use those you bunch of whimpy kiddy baby whiners.

I wonder what it is lately, but people like you - i.e, NSG's fascist troll club - lately have been getting awfully aggressive.

Well, macho posturing aggression, that is. Your Kissenbach friend with his tough-guy talk about "fags," you dismissing everything as "gay," and "whimpy," <sp> as if annihilating your stupid arguments is somehow an unmanly (and homosexual) thing to do.

Seems to me you're just lashing out because you can't cope with rational arguments. You make flawed polls and then thump your little chest when people point out the flaws. You cite biased sources and, again, when the bias is pointed out you pull out your best insults in a torrent of teenage angst.

It seems to me like you're the one who's whining. In fact, I smell a self-righteous hissy fit about how liberals gang up on the soothsaying [neo]conservatives coming on.

And you're seriously praising the latter and condemning the former?

One of these days I'm going to explode from sheer frustration.

Condemning Hillary for pandering is like condemning fire for being hot. Not newsworthy. :p I'd say Obama's statement is slightly more obnoxious in that it's pandering in a patronizing sentimentalist wrapper, but it's another thing entirely to praise Hillary for giving the stock response to that sort of thing, if anyone's really doing that.

This thread is making me positively resilient.

Can we bury it?

lol..touche. I giggled.

I'll break from the constant hate and arguing on NSG and say that I actually really sat back, smiled and laughed from that post.

lol, well done.
I can have a win every now and again. Happy to amuse :p

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICAN VALUES?!
Because...

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rjo0867l.jpg

Borat says Niiiiiiice!
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Win.jpg


And now back to your regular argument http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/happy.gif

I wonder what it is lately, but people like you - i.e, NSG's fascist troll club - lately have been getting awfully aggressive.

Well, macho posturing aggression, that is. Your Kissenbach friend ...
To be honest I stopped there because I already got to two lies.

1. I'm not a fascist. Be a big boy. You know you can disagree with people without trying to taint them as things they are not. I'm not a fascist.

2. Kirchenbach or whatever his name is is not my friend. I'm pro-American and he is one of the most anti-American people I've ever seen on NSG. I have NO IDEA what gave you the impression that we are friends??? But then again...when have you stopped to use reason and reality when you could just make up stuff? Hey!

I'm not a fascist.

Your frequent defenses of Pinochet say otherwise.

You know you can disagree with people without trying to taint them as things they are not.

Things like whimpy kiddy baby whiners?

Things like whimpy kiddy baby whiners?

That was at the end of my post after I explained exactly why I was annoyed, plus it was not addressed at anyone in particular nor was it to try to taint anyone. It was just an outcry.

It's from the movie Bruce Almighty. It was stuck in my head, heh.

Your frequent defenses of Pinochet say otherwise.
No it doesn't. Many people defended Pinochet. Half of the population in Chile does. America did. England did. France did.

No it doesn't. Many people defended Pinochet. Half of the population in Chile does. America did. England did. France did.

1- No, it's not half of the population in Chile.

2- Yes, they were fascists at that point in time. I stand by my statement.

"Ah, yes, those poor idiotic masses! Everything must be dumbed down for them, because they're too stupid to understand reason and facts, unlike us!"

And you were calling Obama elitist (whatever sort of attack that's supposed to be)? Oh, the irony. Let me savour it. *mmmh, delicious*

I never called Obama elitist, nor did I ever refer to any group of people as the "idiotic masses." I simply made the point that his statements had elitist connotations, and that people tend to react emotionally. Why do you equivocate emotional reactions with idiocy? Even the most intellectual of people can feel insulted and have their feelings hurt. That doesn't make them dumb -- that makes them human.

In the world of politics and public discourse in general, in order to gain approval, there are certain things that one shouldn't say. For instance, if one wishes to see a healthcare reform bill passed and is dependent upon support from one's political opponents to see this occur, then one probably shouldn't refer to anyone who would question such a proposal as a callous, heartless fuck. Doing so would simply alienate potential supporters. The same is true with the case at hand. Although Obama was correct in the statements he made, tactically, he was wrong to say what he did. It's not a matter of right and wrong in this case, it's a matter of the fact that some things are best left unsaid, and the comments Obama made can only hurt his political prospects.

I never called Obama elitist, nor did I ever refer to any group of people as the "idiotic masses."

Oooh, you implied them instead. What a fucking huge difference.

In the world of politics and public discourse in general, in order to gain approval, there are certain things that one shouldn't say. For instance, if one wishes to see a healthcare reform bill passed and is dependent upon support from one's political opponents to see this occur, then one probably shouldn't refer to anyone who would question such a proposal as a callous, heartless fuck. Doing so would simply alienate potential supporters. The same is true with the case at hand. Although Obama was correct in the statements he made, tactically, he was wrong to say what he did. It's not a matter of right and wrong in this case, it's a matter of the fact that some things are best left unsaid, and the comments Obama made can only hurt his political prospects.
Damnit.

Finally, reason.

This is all this debate is about! Why don't people see that?

To be honest I stopped there because I already got to two lies.


No, you stopped there because you don't have a work ethic, you're intellectually dishonest and you know I'm right.

1. I'm not a fascist. Be a big boy. You know you can disagree with people without trying to taint them as things they are not. I'm not a fascist.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And Andaras isn't a Stalinist. IWho exactly do you think you're fooling here? Your views are easily describable as fascist whether or not you happen to consider yourself a card-carrying Fascist.

Get over it. And before you tell me to "be a big boy," you might want to stop whining about having your fascist views described as fascist first. Might give you some credibility with regards to your I'm-so-manly shtick, though I doubt it.

2. Kirchenbach or whatever his name is is not my friend. I'm pro-American and he is one of the most anti-American people I've ever seen on NSG. I have NO IDEA what gave you the impression that we are friends???

Oh, so that's the best "lie" you could accuse me of. Well you know, if me describing another poster as your "friend" is an actual "lie," what of you describing my thread as "gay?" Frankly, my threads don't even have sexual identities, let alone preferences. See, you're a "liar" too, under your own stupid definition.

But then again...when have you stopped to use reason and reality when you could just make up stuff? Hey!

Reason and reality? Like calling threads "gay?" Like calling your opponents "whiners?"

If that's what you call reason and reality, it's no wonder you probably think you've won every debate you've gotten into on NSG.

ALRIGHT ENOUGH about Fox news. It was the first article on it I found when searching for it on the web. I was watching it last night on CNN and today went online to post it on NSG.

Who the fuck cares..it's not like Fox made up the story.

It's not like it actually IS a story . . .

Did you type that with a straight face? "Cold, hard rationality?" Are we talking American voters here? 'Cause that's just outright bullshit. Substitute the word "spin" for "rationality", and you'd have something.
Quite to the contrary, American voters have decided whole elections based on "spin" (see the 2004 presidential election), so I don't really know what you're getting at there.
Where did anyone say that Obama supporters are always enlightened?
The post I originally quoted implied that, but that poster clarified his/her comments in a later post.
Why must you grasp at straws to try and find something wrong with a candidate?
I'm not grasping at straws trying to find something wrong with Obama. Quite on the contrary, I have already stated that I agree with his statements. I am simply stating that he made a mistake in saying what he did due to the reaction that it provoked in people. My criticism is not directed at him as a candidate or a person -- it's directed at the lapse in judgement he made when making those statements publicly. It was just not a smart political move, and clearly the media frenzy it has provoked shows this.

For the record, it would be very easy for me to look past what you really mean and take your (underlined) words to mean that you'd RATHER be bullshitted, hyperbolized and lied to -- God help us that a candidate should be "quite true and insightful".
Once again, I never spoke out against Obama's words, just his ill-advised decision in saying them. Furthermore, I never made any statements about my personal preferences when selecting a candidate.


Y'know what? People can feel however they want about those comments. The truth only hurts when it should. That doesn't make the words any less true or any less worth saying if you have the guts to say them. OF COURSE people are emotional, that's what makes us human (well, except Dick Cheney and Al Gore, but that's another story). But emotions don't matter when the truth is at stake. Are we going to sit around and allow more lies and flattering propaganda to pacify us? Or are we going to make hard decisions and take a good, hard look at ourselves and decide to honestly deal with honest problems and not horseshit like flag burning, gay marriage and the pledge of allegiance?

No one is asking him to lie. As I mentioned before, if one wants to get elected, then there are certain things that one should just not say. Every successful politician knows this, including Obama. You can say all you want about the importance of truth, but no one ever got elected to the presidency by simply telling it like it is all the time.

In the world of politics and public discourse in general, in order to gain approval, there are certain things that one shouldn't say. For instance, if one wishes to see a healthcare reform bill passed and is dependent upon support from one's political opponents to see this occur, then one probably shouldn't refer to anyone who would question such a proposal as a callous, heartless fuck. Doing so would simply alienate potential supporters. The same is true with the case at hand. Although Obama was correct in the statements he made, tactically, he was wrong to say what he did. It's not a matter of right and wrong in this case, it's a matter of the fact that some things are best left unsaid, and the comments Obama made can only hurt his political prospects.

Hmm... So it's better to lie, muddy up the debate, and ignore the real problems because you may lose votes?

Frankly, I'd rather have my poiticians honest and not so damned cowardly.

And again people..I'd like to say that nowhere have I said that I think Obama was wrong...what I'm posting for debate and what, from what I can tell, much of the media is making into debate, is whether it was politically stupid for Obama to say this, even more so when combined with his recent Wright fiasco.

So everyone just calm the fuck down, relax and just take two of these and walk it out.

Last I checked the only non-calm person in this thread was you.

Oooh, you implied them instead. What a fucking huge difference.

Well, if that's the implication you took from my post, hopefully I clarified my position.

You seem to be under the impression that I am among those who were offended by Obama's comments -- I wasn't, nor am I defending those individuals. I'm simply speaking to the reality of what it takes to win an election. People were and still are offended by what he said, so clearly making those remarks was not a good strategical move on his part. That's all I'm saying. I want him to get elected, and I do not wish to see him spoil his chances at victory and embolden Hillary with missteps like this one. The fact is that his comments were, politically, a mistake. I would doubt that any member of his campaign, if you were able to talk them one-on-one, would tell you any differently.

lol dude....you really need to relax. I have no idea what you are talking about. I've only seen like a few or so threads of Kirchenbach and they've all been really anti-American..so I don't know why you'd call him my friend. How that has to do with 'gay threads' is beyond me?

And I'm not a fascist. Anyone who calls themself some deviation of "right" will have something they share with fascism, such as patriotism, or respect for military or whatever it is....it doesn't make them a fascist.

The following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
I have alot of problems with alot of that and I certainly wouldn't use it to describe my political views. I beleive Political Compass had me like 7.35 economically and 3 or 4 socially.

Hardly fascist at all. A fascist, for example would be much lower on the capitalist part and much higher on the social part.

I'm using the Political Compass because I feel you won't understand what I say any other way.

Well, if that's the implication you took from my post, hopefully I clarified my position.

You tried, but didn't actually end up changing what your message was: politicians shouldn't be truthful and factual, because the public are too stupid or emotional to get it. Then you ragged on Obama for him saying something "elitist", all the while and continually not seeing that beam in your eye.

Ugh, I used a Bible reference! How revolting.

Well, if that's the implication you took from my post, hopefully I clarified my position.

You seem to be under the impression that I am among those who were offended by Obama's comments -- I wasn't, nor am I defending those individuals. I'm simply speaking to the reality of what it takes to win an election. People were and still are offended by what he said, so clearly making those remarks was not a good strategical move on his part. That's all I'm saying. I want him to get elected, and I do not wish to see him spoil his chances at victory and embolden Hillary with missteps like this one. The fact is that his comments were, politically, a mistake. I would doubt that any member of his campaign, if you were able to talk them one-on-one, would tell you any differently.

Far as I recall, the last Democrat who tried to be politically inoffensive was John Kerry and look what that got him: Accusations of being an indecisive flip-flopper that stuck to him and gave the nation 4 more years of crippling Bushevism.

And Hilary would be the last person to have a solid foundation on which to try and discredit him, unless somebody hires an actual sniper to take potshots at her.

Hmm... So it's better to lie, muddy up the debate, and ignore the real problems because you may lose votes?

Frankly, I'd rather have my poiticians honest and not so damned cowardly.

So would I, but in today's world, you'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate who was always candid and never took political reprecussions into consideration when making a statement. This is simply due to the fact that in a national election, it makes strategic sense to manipulate one's words to attract the most voters possible. That's politics. Besides, the core of Obama's message is what's most important; as long as he continues to stand for bringing the war in Iraq to an end, implementing a universal health care strategy, and restoring the rule of law, then I have no qualms with him mincing words in order to win.

You tried, but didn't actually end up changing what your message: politicians shouldn't be truthful and factual, because the public are too stupid or emotional to get it.
It's not a matter of being untruthful, it's a matter of the simple fact that some things are best left unsaid. There was no reason Obama had to make the statements he made. When it comes to the issues, I would rather Obama tell it like it is, which he does, in my view. However, this was not a policy issue or anything of the like; it was a series of statements that were part of a speech that didn't need to be said to further any policy position or anything of the like. Strategically, it was harmful, and there was no reason for him to make those statements.

Why should Obama have to voice his opinion which might be potentially harmful to his campaign, yet has no bearing on the issues or any sort of policy position? Should Obama should go into detail about how he (hypothetically) views chiropractors as quack doctors? I think you would say no. And why would you most likely say no? Because there is no reason for him to bring his views on that subject into the public discourse, and yet it would unnecessarily alienate potential voters. It's the same situation as the case we're discussing. Though he was referring to rural voters in the context of an unresponsive government, there was no reason to voice his views about their behavior; those statements were not necessary in any policy position or connecting with voters whatsoever, so why did they need to be made?

Then you ragged on Obama for him saying something "elitist", all the while and continually not seeing that beam in your eye.
I never called him an elitist. I simply said that the connotations of his comments were elitist. Once again, I simply made the observation that even the most intellectual of people can have emotional responses to certain statements. It's human nature, not idiocy.

Damnit.

Finally, reason.

This is all this debate is about! Why don't people see that?

Plenty of people are being reasonable in this debate. But maybe you're not rushing to praise them because their reason leads them to a different conclusion than yours.

Ugh, I used a Bible reference! How revolting.
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/8606/libxa2.jpg

So would I, but in today's world, you'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate who was always candid and never took political reprecussions into consideration when making a statement. This is simply due to the fact that in a national election, it makes strategic sense to manipulate one's words to attract the most voters possible. That's politics. Besides, the core of Obama's message is what's most important; as long as he continues to stand for bringing the war in Iraq to an end, implementing a universal health care strategy, and restoring the rule of law, then I have no qualms with him mincing words in order to win.

You just show how rotten The Game is, because Obama, if he was mincing words on Iraq, healthcare and the rest, would leave himself huge loopholes that he could easily exploit after he got elected so he could show that even if he didn't go through with what you thought his policies were, he'd still not be going back on his word.

I hate that politicians feel the need to manipulate their words. I hate the obfuscation and trickery they employ - and that people buy and let them get away with. In politics today, accountability for words and promises seems to have evaporated.

And again, I want less cowardly politicians. I think Obama did great by saying what he did, and I think the attacks on him missed and I can only hope it backfires.

--snip--

Listen, you can rephrase it all you want, your message still remains what it was in the first post: elitist crap ragging on Obama for saying something you'd claim elitist. We get it! Too bad you can't. But that's not my problem, so you don't have to reiterate it to me in increasingly tl;dr-esque posts.

lol dude....you really need to relax. I have no idea what you are talking about. I've only seen like a few or so threads of Kirchenbach and they've all been really anti-American..so I don't know why you'd call him my friend. How that has to do with 'gay threads' is beyond me?

Yep, it's beyond you, I guess. Here, I'll explain it as clearly as I possibly can. Again.

1. I made reference to this guy as your "friend." In this thread. Hopefully you still remember that.
2. You made reference to my earlier thread as gay leftist bait (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13601082#post13601082).
3. The two statements are equivalent in the sense that you were not literally saying my thread had a homosexual preference, while I was not literally saying you and Kirshittinbach hang out and eat lollipops together.
4. Yet, you accuse my statement of being a "lie" since it is not literally true. In which case, your statement was also a "lie."

It was a comparison made solely to demonstrate your faulty premises, insofar as you don't hold yourself to be a "liar" or that you were "lying" when you made the gay thread reference, yet you hold my statement as a "lie."

And I'm not a fascist. Anyone who calls themself some deviation of "right" will have something they share with fascism, such as patriotism, or respect for military or whatever it is....it doesn't make them a fascist.

Or defending fascists, or infusing every other statement with paranoid persecution fantasies about the "left," about "gays," always taking the anti-Muslim position, the anti-immigrant, the pro-White People positions, the pro-military, pro-war, pro-idiocy position.

You're a fascist. Maybe you're not as strong a fascist as, say, Andaras. Maybe a watered-down, kind of diluted and certainly ashamed of his own beliefs fascist. But a fascist all the same. There are plenty of "right" wingers who do not qualify as you do, including (according to some) myself, for "fascism."

I'm using the Political Compass because I feel you won't understand what I say any other way.

Oh dearie. You seem to have forgotten that the problem here was your misunderstanding, not anyone misunderstanding you.

Listen, you can rephrase it all you want, your message still remains what it was in the first post: elitist crap ragging on Obama for saying something you'd claim elitist. We get it! Too bad you can't. But that's not my problem, so you don't have to reiterate it to me in increasingly tl;dr-esque posts.

You either completely misunderstand what I'm saying, or you're willfully misconstruing my words. Either way, I don't think I can make my position on this issue any clearer, so I don't see discussing this subject with you to be worth it any longer. Furthermore, it gets tiresome arguing with someone who behaves so childishly.

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/8606/libxa2.jpg



You just show how rotten The Game is, because Obama, if he was mincing words on Iraq, healthcare and the rest, would leave himself huge loopholes that he could easily exploit after he got elected so he could show that even if he didn't go through with what you thought his policies were, he'd still not be going back on his word.

I hate that politicians feel the need to manipulate their words. I hate the obfuscation and trickery they employ - and that people buy and let them get away with. In politics today, accountability for words and promises seems to have evaporated.

And again, I want less cowardly politicians. I think Obama did great by saying what he did, and I think the attacks on him missed and I can only hope it backfires.

And this is hopefully what will get Obama elected. He's not Just Another Politician, putting a Good Spin on everything he says and a Bad Spin on everything everyone else says. A lot of people will like that. Especially those who think that all the other Just Another Politicians haven't done right by them. People like those Pennsylvanians he was talking about.

And this is hopefully what will get Obama elected. He's not Just Another Politician, putting a Good Spin on everything he says and a Bad Spin on everything everyone else says. A lot of people will like that. Especially those who think that all the other Just Another Politicians haven't done right by them. People like those Pennsylvanians he was talking about.

I hope you're right, although I remain very skeptical about any politican who makes it as far as he has.

You either completely misunderstand what I'm saying, or you're willfully misconstruing my words.

Yeah, I'm totally misconstruing: "That's just the kind of elitist sentiment that caused this controversy in the first place. Of course the statements he made were quite true and insightful; however, people's feelings towards a candidate, or any human being for that matter, are rarely based on cold, hard rationality. Whether or not you consider their feelings to be justified, people were offended and felt insulted by Obama's comments. Much of what is said in daily discourse provokes reactions out people not necessarily based on the content of the speech, but on the connotations it carries. To sum this all up, people are emotional creatures, and sometimes cold rationality and observance are just too harsh for people."

As I said: you posted a bunch of elitist crap of how enfeebled the public is and how it should be treated as such, all the while criticising Obama's and others' so called "elitism". You do understand that we can go back and read what you wrote? You going "that's not what I wrote" doesn't mean we suddenly lose our literacy.

And again as I said: all you've done so far is rephrase that original post, but not actually changed the meaning; "the public is enfeebled and Obama should treat it as such, otherwise he's elitist". That's rich... :rolleyes:

And this is hopefully what will get Obama elected. He's not Just Another Politician, putting a Good Spin on everything he says and a Bad Spin on everything everyone else says. A lot of people will like that. Especially those who think that all the other Just Another Politicians haven't done right by them. People like those Pennsylvanians he was talking about.

Expect his favorable ratings to fall like a bad quiche when voters find out that's not the case. :p Not that he doesn't have a shot, but the glow won't last.

Yeah, I'm totally misconstruing: "That's just the kind of elitist sentiment that caused this controversy in the first place. Of course the statements he made were quite true and insightful; however, people's feelings towards a candidate, or any human being for that matter, are rarely based on cold, hard rationality. Whether or not you consider their feelings to be justified, people were offended and felt insulted by Obama's comments. Much of what is said in daily discourse provokes reactions out people not necessarily based on the content of the speech, but on the connotations it carries. To sum this all up, people are emotional creatures, and sometimes cold rationality and observance are just too harsh for people."

That was my first post. I made several other posts clarifiying my position. My most recent one details it the best. Why don't you take a look at that one? Your utter refusal to even acknowledge the content of that post, albeit to dismiss it as "more of the same," says a lot about the strength of your accusations.

That was my first post. I made several other posts clarifiying my position.

I don't think it's too hard to understand "all you've done so far is rephrase that original post, but not actually changed the meaning". I have already acknowledged you having made more posts. What I'm telling you is, none of those posts have changed what you're saying other than using different words to say the same thing, over, and over, and over. And this is where I stop indulging you, because apparently I was mistaken in thinking it wasn't too hard to understand.

I don't think it's too hard to understand "all you've done so far is rephrase that original post, but not actually changed the meaning". I have already acknowledged you having made more posts. What I'm telling you is, none of those posts have changed what you're saying other than using different words to say the same thing, over, and over, and over. And this is where I stop indulging you, because apparently I was mistaking in thinking it wasn't too hard to understand.
I think the fact that you never quote my other posts and never respond to any of the examples I've given in them is quite telling. Furthermore, I made a new argument in my last post on this subject: what does it gain for Obama to make statements about potentially damaging opinions of his when they have no bearing on policy matters or anything of the like? The fact that you ignore that argument either tells me that a) you haven't read my later posts or b) you're trying to project that you've won this argument when in fact, your posts have been reduced to nothing more than hollow rhetoric, utilizing selective evidence.

Obama has recently made a comment that has shocked the nation, with Republicans and Democrats alike complaining about it the potential political suicide something like that could have for his campaign. While meeting with very very wealthy California Obama campaign donors in a very very wealthy part of Northern California around San Francisco, Obama said this about small town America:

Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Here's a report on the implications and the story itself. Personally I think the setting and the audience he said this to made the matter probably...at a conservative guess, 2904830292 times worse.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/11/obama-draws-fire-for-comments-on-small-town-america/

I said a while ago that I didn't mind Obama because I liked that he was shaking up our politics, offering some new views and I generally think he's a good person that wants to do some good. My problem with him has always been not that I don't like him, but that I simply don't agree with him over what government should and should not do. What the basis of government is for.

However recently, the whole thing with Rev. Wright who Obama admits is his spiritual advisor and family friend, amongst lying to people about free-trade and protectionism with NAFTA, and now this terribly stupid statement, is making me just give Obama a big ":rolleyes:"...

This sounds like a silly over simplification. Everything that is wrong is because of lack of jobs? I'm sure it contributes but as I said, it does sound like an over simplification. Further discussion is not necessarry since he hasnt put any evidence to support his arguments.

But I'm not surprised. His usual talk about progress and change with simplistic examples thrown in.

Barack Hussein Obama has been, unwittingly or otherwise, revealing his true beliefs for some time now. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and now this latest elitist, arrogant left-wing blast will most assuredly come back to bite him in the @$$ this fall. I am SO going to enjoy the GOP commercials featuring all these incidents. McCain is going to clean his clock.

Get ready for four more years of a GOP White House :D

I don't see how it's condescending...

I'm glad Obama said what he did.

The patronising political logic being used here is self-perpetual, but can only go on if the voters allow it to. And if we do, we can't expect anything better than Bush falling off segways or Bill hiding lies with saxophone solos.

Obama is the first politican I've seen thats spoken the truth instead of making up some propaganda to boost their support from Rove's stereotypes... Why do we have to punish that?

"Obama calls a spade a spade, people saddened"?

I don't see how it's condescending...

Telling millions of people that their beliefs are merely reactions to external pressure could be seen as a tad condescending.

Obama has recently made a comment that has shocked the nation, with Republicans and Democrats alike complaining about it the potential political suicide something like that could have for his campaign. While meeting with very very wealthy California Obama campaign donors in a very very wealthy part of Northern California around San Francisco, Obama said this about small town America:

Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Here's a report on the implications and the story itself. Personally I think the setting and the audience he said this to made the matter probably...at a conservative guess, 2904830292 times worse.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/11/obama-draws-fire-for-comments-on-small-town-america/

I said a while ago that I didn't mind Obama because I liked that he was shaking up our politics, offering some new views and I generally think he's a good person that wants to do some good. My problem with him has always been not that I don't like him, but that I simply don't agree with him over what government should and should not do. What the basis of government is for.

However recently, the whole thing with Rev. Wright who Obama admits is his spiritual advisor and family friend, amongst lying to people about free-trade and protectionism with NAFTA, and now this terribly stupid statement, is making me just give Obama a big ":rolleyes:"...
NON-American: Yes it was a stupid thing to say, and I don't agree with it.

Trying to blame Bill Clinton? That is sad.

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp?StartYear=1948&EndYear=2007

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/unemployment.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/jobcreation.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/djia.gif

Obama is not thinking clearly?

Anyone who thinks what he says isnt true is wrong.

And Im glad he was blunt about it. Politics need more bluntness.

Barack Hussein Obama has been, unwittingly or otherwise, revealing his true beliefs for some time now. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and now this latest elitist, arrogant left-wing blast will most assuredly come back to bite him in the @$$ this fall. I am SO going to enjoy the GOP commercials featuring all these incidents. McCain is going to clean his clock.

Get ready for four more years of a GOP White House :D

The adds will be switching between that, and the Demo adds just howing McCain saying we'll spend 100 years in Iraq. Which do you think will bother average Joe Voter more?


Ill let you know, there is a right answer, by being New Mitanni you probably will pick the wrong one.

Obama is not thinking clearly?

Obama referring to small towns in Pennsylvania. Small towns in Pennsylvania != the entire US.

Obama referring to small towns in Pennsylvania. Small towns in Pennsylvania != the entire US.
Okay, then try this on:

http://www.ruralpa.org/trends_realitycheck.pdf

Also try this on:

http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/08-2000/wh-0805.html

Obama is not thinking clearly?

Unemployment is lower as a percentage than it was during the Clinton years, and the stock market is a weak indicator of economic health at best. But Obama's remarks were referring to the dying industrial areas of PA, which are problematic just like they are in OH and MI in many places. He had that much right, in that there certainly is financial stress in the extreme in those areas, even if I don't buy his conclusions, or the impulse that tells some people that the government can simply spend the economy out of recession.

Trying to blame Bill Clinton? That is sad.

His administration just benefited from an global economic upturn. Obviously, as a Democrat, he's better than anyone since Carter, but he's not the Saint we like to remember him as...

Telling millions of people that their beliefs are merely reactions to external pressure could be seen as a tad condescending.
Political and religious beliefs are nothing but reactions to real economic factors.

Political and religious beliefs are nothing but reactions to real economic factors.

Oh, there's self-interest involved in most everything, I agree. However, Obama was making an us/them distinction in reference to his opposition, rather than stating as much as a sort of fact of life.

Barack Hussein Obama has been, unwittingly or otherwise, revealing his true beliefs for some time now. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and now this latest elitist, arrogant left-wing blast will most assuredly come back to bite him in the @$$ this fall. I am SO going to enjoy the GOP commercials featuring all these incidents. McCain is going to clean his clock.

Get ready for four more years of a GOP White House :D
On the plus side, you've moved on from calling him the Magic Negro.

Get ready for four more years of a GOP White House :D

I won't. Because it will not happen. Americans have evolved beyond that.

Okay, then try this on:

http://www.ruralpa.org/trends_realitycheck.pdf

Also try this on:

http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/08-2000/wh-0805.html

See, now you're getting it :)

I won't. Because it will not happen. Americans have evolved beyond that.

Hohoho, hahaha, heeheehee... oh, you crack me up!

I won't. Because it will not happen. Americans have evolved beyond that.

Yeah, we thought that before they re-elected Bush.

I won't. Because it will not happen. Americans have evolved beyond that.
Yeah, but half the Republican voters don't believe in evolution anyway.

Anyone who thinks what he says isnt true is wrong.

And Im glad he was blunt about it. Politics need more bluntness.

Eh. More than a few liberal commentators/bloggers are disagreeing with Obama on those points - some are calling it another "gaffe" already. One source, if you're interested:

http://www.slate.com/id/2188487/

As for needing more bluntness, well, that sure wasn't the line the Dems used on '04, was it? :p What happened to the importance of nuance? ;)

Hohoho, hahaha, heeheehee... oh, you crack me up!

Whatever you may think, Fass, they certainly aren't dumb ENOUGH to re-reelect Bush.

Yeah, but half the Republican voters don't believe in evolution anyway.

I didn't say THEY won't vote for Johnny the POW.

Hohoho, hahaha, heeheehee... oh, you crack me up!

Reported for flame baiting. Pointing out what you do doesnt seem to do anything. Maybe the Mods can get you to realize.

It's not a matter of being untruthful, it's a matter of the simple fact that some things are best left unsaid. There was no reason Obama had to make the statements he made.

Can anybody at all tell me what exactly was wrong with this statement of his? A lot of people seem to be getting worked up over absolutly nothing.

Reported for flame baiting. Pointing out what you do doesnt seem to do anything. Maybe the Mods can get you to realize.

Where's the bait?

Can anybody at all tell me what exactly was wrong with this statement of his? A lot of people seem to be getting worked up over absolutly nothing.

it has to be spun to be wrong.

so, ignoring the whole getting screwed by both parties part, if you just look at the "cling to their guns, religion, anti immigraton, etc" part it makes it seem as if he is dissing them for being pro-2nd ammendment, religious, and xenophobic.

Can anybody at all tell me what exactly was wrong with this statement of his? A lot of people seem to be getting worked up over absolutly nothing.

I recommend the link that I posted earlier on this page - it covers some of the 'concerns' over Obama's remarks. I agree with most of them, though I'm noplace near "worked up."

NON-American: Yes it was a stupid thing to say, and I don't agree with it.

Trying to blame Bill Clinton? That is sad.

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp?StartYear=1948&EndYear=2007

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/unemployment.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/jobcreation.gif

http://www.buzzflash.com/AreYouBetterOff/042104/djia.gif

Obama is not thinking clearly?

I suppose if you're going to post this in thread after thread, even threads that have nothing to do with it, then I'll keeping pointing out in thread after thread how stupid it is.

The economic upturn began in 1991 when the internet was opened to commercial traffic. The downturn began in 1999 when the bubble began to burst and really hit it's stride in March 2000 when the bubble finally burst.

So Clinton comes into a growing economy and leaves and crumbling economy and you think that he should be praised for this?

I watched 50 people go on to long-term unemployment as a result of the bubble collapsing. It had nothing to do with Bush. And they only recovered by changing jobs.

Meanwhile, your numbers show the unemployment rate is back to what it was in before the bubble burst and that we've recovered the 75% of the economic growth lost to that bubble. Are you attempting to praise Bush?

By the way, good company you got there. Among non-Americans, there is pretty much just you and Nova Germania in your poll option. Probably just coincidence, right?

Can anybody at all tell me what exactly was wrong with this statement of his? A lot of people seem to be getting worked up over absolutly nothing.

It's anything but "absolutely nothing." It's reflective of the true views of someone who has the potential to occupy the White House as of 2009.

Tammy Bruce breaks down Obama's true views:

You Small Town, Bitter, Ignorant Reactionary Rednecks, You

It's interesting what we learn about the Obama's when they open their mouths, isn't it? Make no mistake--one of the hallmarks of Marxists is their disdain for people in general. Barack Obama has judged you and declared you Stupid and Shallow. Barack Hussein Obama has determined that your faith in God, your commitment to the founding principles of this great nation, including the Second Amendment, and your love of this nation and her sovereignty, are simple refuges for the depressed, bitter and ignorant.

What should you take from his comments? That Barack Obama is a self-righteous, MalNar [= Malignant Narcisist: NM] Snob who is stupid enough and In Love with HImself enough to not know what not to say or even to realize how pathetic he is.
Combine his tripe with the Missus' declaration that we're also mean and a bunch of failures, well, I'd say we need to make very sure these freaks don't get anywhere near the White House. Ever.

Read the full article:

http://www.tammybruce.com/#003347

Tammy Bruce breaks down Obama’s true views...Read the full article
‘Political commentary’ from someone who calls Obama a ‘Marxist’?

Puh-lease.

‘Political commentary’ from someone who calls Obama a ‘Marxist’?

Puh-lease.

New Mitanni always has been and always will be an example of how Bushevism will live on past Dubya's terms. The media's fascination with the statement as if Obama confessed to being a member of Bin Ladin's inner cicle just shows how liberal the media really is.

Whatever you may think, Fass, they certainly aren't dumb ENOUGH to re-reelect Bush.

A lot of people thought that of them (re-)electing him in the first place... McCain, a.k.a. third Bush term, is not bound to lose, especially if you consider the polls (http://365gay.com/Newscon08/04/041108mcc.htm). So, I wouldn't have as much faith as you.

The people who live in small towns that have suffered job loses do not have an exclusive on bitterness, a liking for guns, religion, small mindedness, bigotry, prejudice, intolerance and isolationism. Not to say this kind of thinking isn't more prevalent in rural areas - it is. Whether you can blame it on job loss is another matter altogether.

The question is, was it a good campaign move? I think Obama believes what he said, and took the chance of being politically incorrect because he thinks those same people he is referring to will recognize his sincerity and react to him like they did to George Bush; they will respect him for being a "straight shooter".

The difference is George Bush said things that might have been politically incorrect, but those things bolstered their egos and made them feel good about their hates and prejudices. Obama's statement isn't very flattering and no matter how much truth he thinks is in it, the people he is reaching out to will feel insulted and will reject him.

Ironic, isn't it? He's being blamed for having an "elitist" attitude, for "talking down" to the poor, small town folk, but he has actually given them way too much credit.

George Bush once said, "You can fool some of the people all the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." You know who he was taking about? Those same small town, small minded, regular old Americans.

So it's shocking that Obama has an opinion other than hope is good? It's shocking that there are certain mindsets he condemns?

It's shocking that there are certain mindsets he condemns?

He's not condemning any mindset. He's calling a segment of his opposition irrational - pathological in a way, and lumping their opinions in with bigotry and "antipathy" for others.

Of course, he isn't stupid, and has since "re-interpreted" his own statement so far as to make it unrecognizable:

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=G6_mQ3h8lx0&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.slate.com/id/2188487/&iurl=http%3A//i.ytimg.com/vi/G6_mQ3h8lx0/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIMI8HGgWLoHpTPjOjcbLBX

...as you can see here. Now it's all "perfectly understandable." Gotta love it. :p

Obama was wrong to say it and wrong when he said it. Everyone going around trying to pretend like he told a ‘truth’ that people don’t like to hear just don’t get it.

What he said was nothing more that stereotyping bigotry. No different than if he said:

Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said.
“You go into these inner cities in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of inner cities in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And the minority poor in those inner cities fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to drugs or booze or antipathy to people who aren’t minorities like them or anti-white establishment sentiment or anti-higher education sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

He's painting with a broad brush and it’s broad brush painting at it’s very worst. Obama was wrong to say it because his conclusions are erroneous...

Pride in religious heritage, belief in the second amendment as a personal right, distrust of unknown strangers and a general belief that immigration to America should be done legally instead of illegally is normal behavior/opinion for many people (as sad, or not, as that may be, it speaks of the human condition, not the small town condition).

All of those opinions and viewpoints exist even when small towns in America are prosperous, none of those things developed in the last 25 years alone, it’s not a new development. For Obama to have suggested that small towns are in more trouble now, during the last 25 years, then previously when compared to all of American history, is pure claptrap. Some small towns are prosperous and grow (even today), some do not (even during prosperous times), the way it has always been. Pretending like he can dismiss the small town antipathy toward his positions because he claims they are bitter is no different than if a white male politician was dismissing inner city minority opinions because they are ‘bitter’ or irrational and don’t know what’s in their own best interest. Simple straight forward bigotry. Obama is an elitist for having said it, and he thinks he was wrong now too, that’s why he has apologized for saying it like he did.

You don't have to be from a small town to have lost your job, you don't have to be from a small town to be religious, you don't have to be from a small town to feel the government has overlooked you, you don't have to be from a small town to have different political view points than Obama does. He's messing up his chances to appeal to the middle masses.

He just got done telling us that the inner city Chicagoans are bitter and we have to 'understand' their misguided opinions when we hear Black Pastors say harsh things about the rest of America, now he's saying the small town people are bitter and we have to 'understand' their misguided opinions too. Excuse me Mr. Obama, is it only the liberal left and inner city rich that do agree with you? Everyone else is misguided because they are bitter and can't think straight? Poppycock.

Obama was wrong to say it and wrong when he said it. Everyone going around trying to pretend like he told a ‘truth’ that people don’t like to hear just don’t get it.

I would wager we get it better than people like you. Just because we dot agree with you doesnt mean we dont get it. That statement takes a great deal more elitism than anything Obam has said.

What he said was nothing more that stereotyping bigotry. No different than if he said:

Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said.
“You go into these inner cities in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of inner cities in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And the minority poor in those inner cities fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to drugs or booze or antipathy to people who aren’t minorities like them or anti-white establishment sentiment or anti-higher education sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Anyone whos had a sociology course knows that people in poor economic situations tend to be more religious for a variety of reasons, be it the community that will help them or the idea that gives them hope. He is right on that.

Also, living in the midwest, I can tell you that that is how it is. Maybe he was mistaken about it being that way in Penn, but I doubt it.

He's painting with a broad brush and it’s broad brush painting at it’s very worst. Obama was wrong to say it because his conclusions are erroneous...

Really? At its very worst? Your opinion of "worst" and priotities are scewed.

Pride in religious heritage, belief in the second amendment as a personal right, distrust of unknown strangers and a general belief that immigration to America should be done legally instead of illegally is normal behavior/opinion for many people (as sad, or not, as that may be, it speaks of the human condition, not the small town condition).

But all of that is more prevelent in small towns.

All of those opinions and viewpoints exist even when small towns in America are prosperous, none of those things developed in the last 25 years alone, it’s not a new development. For Obama to have suggested that small towns are in more trouble now, during the last 25 years, then previously when compared to all of American history, is pure claptrap.

When did he say the part in bold? Or does it just suit your arguement better to assume he did?

Some small towns are prosperous and grow (even today), some do not (even during prosperous times), the way it has always been.

No one has said that isnt how it is.

Pretending like he can dismiss the small town antipathy toward his positions because he claims they are bitter is no different than if a white male politician was dismissing inner city minority opinions because they are ‘bitter’

I would agree with a white politician who said he didnt do well amongst inner city blacks because they are bitter and dont trust him. So would you. Or is it only wrong to make such suggestions when your candidate isnt the one doing it?

or irrational and don’t know what’s in their own best interest.

Please, show me where he said that they are irrational and dont know whats in their best interest? Or does it just help you more if we all put those words in his mouth?

Simple straight forward bigotry. Obama is an elitist for having said it, and he thinks he was wrong now too, that’s why he has apologized for saying it like he did.

Hes apologized for saying it like he did becaue idiots like some are going to take it out of context, put words in his mouth (like you are already doing) or misunderstand his intent. The only mistake Obama made was treating the American people like adults, they clearly cant handle it. This election is showing me more than any other event in my life that the American people need to be coddled and prefer to be lied to than to be told the truth when its unpleasent. Its a mistake to treat them like adults. I guess he just has more faith in America and its people than he should.

You don't have to be from a small town to have lost your job,

Wow, how enlightening. Show me where Obama said that.

you don't have to be from a small town to be religious,

Show me where Obama said that. In fact, Id wager thats the only reason you are upset. Hes not wanking it over Jesus. And is saying that some people use religion as a possible crutch. Which they do. There is nothing wrong with that, but to deny it is foolish.

you don't have to be from a small town to feel the government has overlooked you,

Show me where Obama said that.

you don't have to be from a small town to have different political view points than Obama does.

Show me where Obama said that.

He's messing up his chances to appeal to the middle masses.

The only people this is going to hurt his chances with are people who wouldnt have voted for him anyway, like you, TAI, or New Mitanni.

He just got done telling us that the inner city Chicagoans are bitter and we have to 'understand' their misguided opinions when we hear Black Pastors say harsh things about the rest of America,

Which they are. I suggest you come here and talk to some of them.

now he's saying the small town people are bitter and we have to 'understand' their misguided opinions too.

So its fine when he says black inner city people are bitter and we need to understand their frustration, but you fly into a rightous anger when he says the same thing about white small town people?

Excuse me Mr. Obama, is it only the liberal left and inner city rich that do agree with you?

Actually, if you look at trends and polls, that is just plain innacurate. Blacks of all educations and incomes, and many independents and moderate Republicans (like our own Corny) agree with him. But wait, it benfits your arguement when the above is true, so we'll let you roll with it.

Everyone else is misguided because they are bitter and can't think straight? Poppycock.

Show me where Obama said that.


Your arguement would be much more effective if it didnt rely totally on putting words in his mouth. Like I said, the only people this has hurt his chances with are people who wouldnt have voted for him anyway, such as nationalistic liberatrians like TAI, racist facist Busheviks like New Mitanni, Die Hard Clinton Supporters like CH, and misguided religious fundies like you.

It's anything but "absolutely nothing." It's reflective of the true views of someone who has the potential to occupy the White House as of 2009.

Tammy Bruce breaks down Obama's true views:



Read the full article:

http://www.tammybruce.com/#003347



True views? I love your insinuation that this racist, Bushevik fundie fuck knows exactly what Obama is thinking. Or did you mean "True views that arent true at all but are words I put in his mouth to better fit my ultra neo con agenda"?


I shouldnt be suprised that we got this source from you though NM. You are the epitome of "fair and balanced", just like Fox News. :p

But people in small town america DO cling to guns and/or religion, and they ARE bitter, that's why they're rednecks.

Every time there's some big SNAFU over something Obama (or anyone that ever stood within 10 ft. of the man) has said, the excuses to attack him get flimsier.

What's next? "OBAMA'S NIECE ENDED A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION! WHO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TURN TO?"?

And when someone in the Clinton Campaign does something its ok.

I stopped paying attention when the OP cite fox news as a source. Seriously, its half them trying to smear Obama just as much as it is half Hillary and McCain to bring him down.

A shame Obama will still beat them. People are growing tired of empty promises. They want hope. They want to be proud of their country for once, not ashamed of it and its actions. Obama is the only president in this race with potential to do that, plain and simple.

You are right that we are growing tired of empty promises. That is why I support Barack Obama. Because his promises are not empty.

Actually, many people disagree with Obama because they don't like his idea of what government should and shouldn't do. But your toolish trolling is fun to watch, so please by all means..keep it up.

Anyone who agrees with a politician 100% of the time is a fucking idiot.

And by the way, in regards to the poll. I was writing it rather quickly .....wrote an option once then copied and pasted it...wrote a differnent option and then copied and pasted it....and so I made a typo and copied and pasted it.

WOW, such a life changing error. Get over it.

Agreed. Don't like the truth? Get over it.

I read some of the posts above this one and I just can't believe how backward America can be.

One candidate is using logic to try and explain why there is the kind of division that can allow someone like Bush to be elected twice. The other says that reasons don't matter, because everyone is actually really happy and great, and lets just ignore the division and hope it goes away.

How is the first candidate being the one being damaged here?

People can't really be that stupid...

Use those you bunch of whimpy kiddy baby whiners.

Awww...poor baby. Can't handle the fact that there isn't an issue here.

Hillary to Bill: Knock it off on Bosnia (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/11/clinton.bosnia/index.html)

Looks like Hillary is sick and tired of her husband talking about her 1996 Bosnia trip. Considering that Hillary got caught lying about it, it comes as no surprise.

That is why I support Barack Obama. Because his promises are not empty.
You cannot prove that his "promises are not empty".

You cannot prove that his "promises are not empty".

Neither can one prove that they are. I do feel though that they are not empty because if I thought they were, I would not be volunteering for his campaign.

Speaking of which...I hope my Dad's insurance is paid up because he's going to learn this today.

You cannot prove that his "promises are not empty".

Obama's only "gaffes" arise when he speaks the truth about America's problems. That evidence enough for him meaning what he says.

That is why I support Barack Obama. Because his promises are not empty.

You cannot prove that his "promises are not empty".

Neither can one prove that they are.
Therefore your initial statement is false.

Hillary to Bill: Knock it off on Bosnia (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/11/clinton.bosnia/index.html)

Looks like Hillary is sick and tired of her husband talking about her 1996 Bosnia trip. Considering that Hillary got caught lying about it, it comes as no surprise.

did you see what bill SAID to "defend" his wife?

he misstated the circumstances of her saying it, how many times she said it and put it off to her being OLD and it being late at night. he actually SAID something like "when youre 60 youll forget things too."

i dont think bill wants his wife to be president.

I read some of the posts above this one and I just can't believe how backward America can be.

One candidate is using logic to try and explain why there is the kind of division that can allow someone like Bush to be elected twice. The other says that reasons don't matter, because everyone is actually really happy and great, and lets just ignore the division and hope it goes away.

How is the first candidate being the one being damaged here?

People can't really be that stupid...

if you look at it this is what is being said

obama: people vote against their economic interests and for issues that wont make any difference in their lives because they realize that their economic interests will never be addressed. they dont support ME because they dont believe that i will be different.

clinton and mccain: youre right. that is why we are using your words to manipulate these voters away from voting for you. they are too cynical to ever believe that you will give them a better deal.

so we will find out soon enough if the voters in pennsylvania and indiana are too cynical to buy obamas promise to give them a fair deal or too cynical to buy hillary clintons " they are happy sunny people" manipulation.

although there is plenty of time for another "issue" to come up to sway voters in those states.

I suppose if you're going to post this in thread after thread, even threads that have nothing to do with it, then I'll keeping pointing out in thread after thread how stupid it is.
Ahhh, again you always have to demonstrate your superior intellect and knowledge to make a point? :rolleyes:

The economic upturn began in 1991 when the internet was opened to commercial traffic. The downturn began in 1999 when the bubble began to burst and really hit it's stride in March 2000 when the bubble finally burst.
IF the "economic upturn began in 1991", then why did the unemployment rate increase from 6.85% in 1991 to 7.49% in 1992? IF the "downturn began in 1999" then why did unemployment rate decrease (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt)from 4.22% in 1999 to 3.97% in 2000?

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp?StartYear=1948&EndYear=2007

So Clinton comes into a growing economy and leaves and crumbling economy and you think that he should be praised for this?
It is not so much as offering praise for Clinton, it is more to suggest that Obama's statement was wrong, and that he shouldn't have blamed Clinton?

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.
Was Obama wrong in blaming Clinton?

I watched 50 people go on to long-term unemployment as a result of the bubble collapsing. It had nothing to do with Bush. And they only recovered by changing jobs.
So, you want to blame Clinton for the bubble collapsing?

Meanwhile, your numbers show the unemployment rate is back to what it was in before the bubble burst and that we've recovered the 75% of the economic growth lost to that bubble. Are you attempting to praise Bush?
The unemployment rate continued to decline under Clinton from 7.3% (1993)until he left office in Dec. 2000 (3.9%).

By the way, good company you got there. Among non-Americans, there is pretty much just you and Nova Germania in your poll option. Probably just coincidence, right?
There are 5 of us......your point?

Unemployment is lower as a percentage than it was during the Clinton years...

Untruth:
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics - Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent) (http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm)
In 2000 when Bill Clinton left office the unemployment rate was 4.0%
Unemployment rate (from the same source) has been 4.6% in 2007.

I'll also made a note here. IRC the methodology of data collection of the USBLS has been changed a couple of years ago leading to readjusted, LOWER, indexes.

I'll also made a note here. IRC the methodology of data collection of the USBLS has been changed a couple of years ago leading to readjusted, LOWER, indexes.
That is a very important point. The unemployment rate is in actually higher than is being reported.

did you see what bill SAID to "defend" his wife?

he misstated the circumstances of her saying it, how many times she said it and put it off to her being OLD and it being late at night. he actually SAID something like "when youre 60 youll forget things too."

i dont think bill wants his wife to be president.

I would agree, except that we're talking about the presence or absence of sniper fire and dashing for cover when de-planing. Memorable stuff, that. Hillary's tap dance around that exaggeration is so very sad.

I read some of the posts above this one and I just can't believe how backward America can be.

One candidate is using logic to try and explain why there is the kind of division that can allow someone like Bush to be elected twice. The other says that reasons don't matter, because everyone is actually really happy and great, and lets just ignore the division and hope it goes away.

How is the first candidate being the one being damaged here?

People can't really be that stupid...

Yes. Yes they can. This is America, we do EVERYTHING big.

"Obama calls a spade a spade, people saddened"?

Very Onion.

It's not a matter of being untruthful, it's a matter of the simple fact that some things are best left unsaid. There was no reason Obama had to make the statements he made. When it comes to the issues, I would rather Obama tell it like it is, which he does, in my view. However, this was not a policy issue or anything of the like; it was a series of statements that were part of a speech that didn't need to be said to further any policy position or anything of the like. Strategically, it was harmful, and there was no reason for him to make those statements.

Why should Obama have to voice his opinion which might be potentially harmful to his campaign, yet has no bearing on the issues or any sort of policy position? Should Obama should go into detail about how he (hypothetically) views chiropractors as quack doctors? I think you would say no. And why would you most likely say no? Because there is no reason for him to bring his views on that subject into the public discourse, and yet it would unnecessarily alienate potential voters. It's the same situation as the case we're discussing. Though he was referring to rural voters in the context of an unresponsive government, there was no reason to voice his views about their behavior; those statements were not necessary in any policy position or connecting with voters whatsoever, so why did they need to be made?


I never called him an elitist. I simply said that the connotations of his comments were elitist. Once again, I simply made the observation that even the most intellectual of people can have emotional responses to certain statements. It's human nature, not idiocy.

#1. Some things, yes. Truths about American political ideas is not one of them. The more we talk about stuff like that, the harder it will be to keep the nation divided with empty rhetoric. Avoiding saying difficult things because they might offend someone is one of the main reasons we have the circus of "gotcha" in politics that we have now.

#2. "Potentially harmful" only when spun and re-interpreted to seem so. Again, I don't want a puppet, either of devious masterminds or of polls, to lead my country. As for its bearing on the issues, man, the way we perceive things is CENTRAL to every issue! Questioning or making people examine how and why they think like they do is critical to a functioning and free society.

#3. The connotations as provided by those who want their audiences to feel slighted. Of course, that's the job of corporate media -- get your target audience to identify with you by any means necessary.

"Stupid" isn't very helpful here, I agree. I was taking it from the poll options. It seems more an example of talk-radio-style pandering to me.

Really? It seems to me like not wanting to sidestep the important issue of perception in this nation. Besides, the monopoly on talk-radio-style pandering is solidly in the reactionary conservative camp -- I don't think Obama is in danger of usurping that power anytime soon. A little of their own medicine seems fair to me.

No one is asking him to lie. As I mentioned before, if one wants to get elected, then there are certain things that one should just not say. Every successful politician knows this, including Obama. You can say all you want about the importance of truth, but no one ever got elected to the presidency by simply telling it like it is all the time.

At least not since Harry S. Truman. If we declare that there are things we can't talk about in political discourse, then the populace will get the candidates we deserve (and by and large, we have, especially lately). Saying nothing while appearing to say something is all we have had for quite some time now, and it's getting old, and potentially dangerous. There's a turd in the punchbowl of electoral politics in this nation, and nobody has the guts to say anything about because "it wouldn't be very nice".

Ralph Nader tried this approach, and it failed him because he didn't have the backing of one of the two huge parties. Now someone from one of those parties squeaks out one frank assessment, and that's bad? I simply cannot see how that is so if we're truly interested in making things better.

This is kinda like the movement in some schools where RED INK is no longer used because it makes students feel bad about having the wrong answer. This means that this aversion to hearing about reality is only going to get worse with the next generation.

This is kinda like the movement in some schools where RED INK is no longer used because it makes students feel bad about having the wrong answer. This means that this aversion to hearing about reality is only going to get worse with the next generation.

Well, red is the color of menstrual blood, which I hear is also something some schools and PTAs would like to discourage.

Well, red is the color of menstrual blood, which I hear is also something some schools and PTAs would like to discourage.

I hit "reply" without knowing what to type. I...we-...yeah.

I got nothin'.

Maybe if Obama actually visited rural Pennsylvania he would know what he's talking about.

My god, man, Hilary and Bill have already been to my county several times, where are you, Barack?

Hell, Bill is here today..

People can't really be that stupid...

Let's see...

Dubya got elected twice, "Reality Shows" are cheap and usually reliable ratings grabbers in the U.S, there's always a fixation on entertainers' latest shallow self-absorbed stunts or fuckups and now people are howling at Obama for pointing out the emperor's naked.

No, people really can't be that stupid.

Maybe if Obama actually visited rural Pennsylvania he would know what he's talking about.

My god, man, Hilary and Bill have already been to my county several times, where are you, Barack?

Hell, Bill is here today..

Yeah, like the Clinthulhus visit Pennsylvania on a regular basis and not just when it's important for Bill or Hellary's electability.

Yeah, like the Clinthulhus visit Pennsylvania on a regular basis and not just when it's important for Bill or Hellary's electability.

I didn't mean it that way. *shakes head*

I mean, why isn't he here trying to get more votes in the primary?

Also: I forgot, Chelthulhu's always here too.

I didn't mean it that way. *shakes head*

I mean, why isn't he here trying to get more votes in the primary?

Also: I forgot, Chelthulhu's always here too.



Because he doesnt ignore every other state in favor of the big ones. He goes to Indiana and North Carolina as well.

Yeah, like the Clinthulhus visit Pennsylvania on a regular basis and not just when it's important for Bill or Hellary's electability.

And I suppose that when Obama visits Pennsylvania, it's because he genuinely wants to get to know people there, not because he's running for the presidency...

Because he doesnt ignore every other state in favor of the big ones. He goes to Indiana and North Carolina as well.

Or he knows he wont win here.

Or he knows he wont win here.

All election he hasnt been one to throw in the towel in a state hes not going to win in. I cant see that changing.

All election he hasnt been one to throw in the towel in a state hes not going to win in. I cant see that changing.

Then what are his efforts in Pennsylvania?

Am I blind or something?

Then what are his efforts in Pennsylvania?

Am I blind or something?

He did a highly publicized bus tour through Pennsylvania, going to Altoona and a bunch of other little cities I've never heard of, many of the places where Clinton's demographic is dominant doing his best to blunt the blow. His famous bad bowling was part of that tour.

Plus there's the record amount of money he's spending on advertising. His race speech was in Pennsylvania.

He may not have gone to your town, but he went to a bunch.

He did a highly publicized bus tour through Pennsylvania, going to Altoona and a bunch of other little cities I've never heard of, many of the places where Clinton's demographic is dominant doing his best to blunt the blow. His famous bad bowling was part of that tour.

Plus there's the record amount of money he's spending on advertising. His race speech was in Pennsylvania.

He may not have gone to your town, but he went to a bunch.

Ah yes, the highly publicized bus tour that got him lots of air time and press. How nice for him. How very nice. Yet Clinton and her people have been doing small town events with hardly any non-local publicity. So Obama shows us that he can't bowl on CNN, but Clinton shows us our vote in the primary matters.

I don't know, maybe I should watch more national news channels. Maybe that's who I should depend on. Not the candidates them selves.

That record amount of money he's spending in PA must be staying right where his bus parked in the southern part of the state, because I've seen maybe 2 commercials from him and that's it.

You really shouldn't neglect a major state.

Us bitter Pennsylvanians are just as willing to vote for him like the the inner city blacks are.

It makes sense for Obama to campaign everywhere, because the democrats split up votes within states, its not winner take all. If he can gain 10 percent in Pennsylvania from his campaigning, thats 10 percent of the delegates from pennsylvania. Clinton is focusing more on one state in an attempt to win and make the race seem like its not over.

As to the statement, Obama is absolutely right, but unfortunately for him the ignorant rednecks he spoke about are the majority in our country, and they probably are too poorly educated to understand what he meant. Unfrotunately, in politics all the most important issues seem to be off-limits. Notice how no ones mentioned how screwed up the WTO and IMF are.

Ah yes, the highly publicized bus tour that got him lots of air time and press. How nice for him. How very nice. Yet Clinton and her people have been doing small town events with hardly any non-local publicity. So Obama shows us that he can't bowl on CNN, but Clinton shows us our vote in the primary matters.

I don't know, maybe I should watch more national news channels. Maybe that's who I should depend on. Not the candidates them selves.

That record amount of money he's spending in PA must be staying right where his bus parked in the southern part of the state, because I've seen maybe 2 commercials from him and that's it.

You really shouldn't neglect a major state.

Us bitter Pennsylvanians are just as willing to vote for him like the the inner city blacks are.

Is it obamas fault that clinton couldn't manage to get attention for her events(yes, it partially is)? How is Clinton showing you that your vote matters in anyway that obama isnt? And whats that inner city black thing supposed to mean?

Ah yes, the highly publicized bus tour that got him lots of air time and press. How nice for him. How very nice. Yet Clinton and her people have been doing small town events with hardly any non-local publicity. So Obama shows us that he can't bowl on CNN, but Clinton shows us our vote in the primary matters.

I don't know, maybe I should watch more national news channels. Maybe that's who I should depend on. Not the candidates them selves.

That record amount of money he's spending in PA must be staying right where his bus parked in the southern part of the state, because I've seen maybe 2 commercials from him and that's it.

You really shouldn't neglect a major state.

Us bitter Pennsylvanians are just as willing to vote for him like the the inner city blacks are.


You know why Hillary has all that time and money to make you guys in Penn feel like your vote counts? Because shes ignoring North Carolina and Indianna, like she has every other smaller state, in favor of Penn.


So, while she is telling you your vote matters, shes also telling smaller states their votes dont. Obama at least divides his time.

You know why Hillary has all that time and money to make you guys in Penn feel like your vote counts? Because shes ignoring North Carolina and Indianna, like she has every other smaller state, in favor of Penn.


So, while she is telling you your vote matters, shes also telling smaller states their votes dont. Obama at least divides his time.

She's telling rural PA that their vote counts, thank you very much.

She's telling rural PA that their vote counts, thank you very much.

Ok. But shes telling all those people in North Carolina, Indianna, ect, that their vote doesnt.

Is it obamas fault that clinton couldn't manage to get attention for her events(yes, it partially is)? How is Clinton showing you that your vote matters in anyway that obama isnt? And whats that inner city black thing supposed to mean?

Now I never said anyone was at fault for anything, but it's showing us that Hilary doesn't crave that media attention that Obama so desperately depends on.

And you don't think he toured Harrisburg, Philadelphia, etc, because there's a lot of inner city black voters there?

Ok. But shes telling all those people in North Carolina, Indianna, ect, that their vote doesnt.

So you're telling me she hasn't once campaigned there? I don't think you're right.

So you're telling me she hasn't once campaigned there? I don't think you're right.

So if Clinton campaigns in a state once she cares about it a great deal whereas if Obama campaigns in a state moderately he doesn't care about your vote. Right.

So if Clinton campaigns in a state once she cares about it a great deal whereas if Obama campaigns in a state moderately he doesn't care about your vote. Right.

Correct.

Ahhh, again you always have to demonstrate your superior intellect and knowledge to make a point? :rolleyes:

I'm glad my replies reflect superior intellect and knowledge. It's a result of a distinct effort to educate myself and incorporate all evidence into my claims. And, yes, I do think it helps my point. It's nice of you to notice that my posts are the result of my knowledge and understanding of the subject.


IF the "economic upturn began in 1991", then why did the unemployment rate increase from 6.85% in 1991 to 7.49% in 1992? IF the "downturn began in 1999" then why did unemployment rate decrease (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt)from 4.22% in 1999 to 3.97% in 2000?

http://www.miseryindex.us/URbyyear.asp?StartYear=1948&EndYear=2007

I didn't say it began in 1991. I said the internet was opened to the public in 1991. Are you debating this?

I also said that it was the internet that fueled the growth of the 90's. Are you debating this?

I also said the bubble began to burst in 1999. Take a course in economics. It's not really debateable. The true burst was in March of 2000, but it began sooner. But, hey, it's not like all of this is widely established. i mean, who has ever heard of the bubble bursting for the dot com and it's responsiblity for the economic downturn.



It is not so much as offering praise for Clinton, it is more to suggest that Obama's statement was wrong, and that he shouldn't have blamed Clinton?

Amusing. Clinton's economics did result in the bubble. Also under Clinton the lowest 20% of the country saw almost no growth at all. The lower two thirds as well. Given he's talking to the people whose factory jobs were drying up in the 90's as well as 00's, what he said is accurate. That there was growth in an entirely different sector doesn't change that.

But hey, that's just me looking at all the evidence again.



Was Obama wrong in blaming Clinton?

When did he blame Clinton?


So, you want to blame Clinton for the bubble collapsing?

I want to blame the economics under Clinton. Yes.



The unemployment rate continued to decline under Clinton from 7.3% (1993)until he left office in Dec. 2000 (3.9%).


There are 5 of us......your point?

Let those with ears here.

Correct.

No, incorrect. Obama spreads it out because everyones votes count. Hillary does the firewall strategy and only campaigns in the big states.

do you think that its NOT true that a segment of the country has been left behind by both parties? that they have been made promises for the past 20 years that no one has even tried to keep?

do you think that they ARENT bitter and cynical about being screwed over by both parties for so long?

That's the whole interesting part of what he said. It's inflammatory because it's quite true. Small town Americans may live in places that sprung up around factories, textile mills, etc. These jobs have been shipped overseas due to the cost of labor there. This leads to a lot of anger over what has happened to them. It also contributes to widespread poverty and less education. Do we believe there are more college graduates in small rural towns? Whenever someone speaks the truth about a sensitive issue some people will automatically become offended. Hillary is grandstanding on this issue, but I guarantee she feels the same damn way. As for the Wright thing, Obama has denounced it. Just today in church my pastor made comments that I don't agree with. Is it going to make me stop going to church there? Nope! People, on a whole, don't want to hear truths that may bring about a little pain. They'd rather have sunshine shoved up their ass no matter how wrong it is.

?

Not funny but nice way of totally ignoring the issue raised in the OP. Whether or not it's important to you and people in your country hardly matters, because back here, where God pays attention, it is all over the media and an issue of debate.

Where God pays attention? I didn't realize that God was so limited. This disappoints me greatly.

I don't know what tl dr means....

The point is one must have tact....that is, a filter between brain and mouth..and that is what the article is saying. I may believe that both parties have forgotten alot of mainstream Americans in the quest for power, but I'm not about to go out like an idiot saying:

"It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Alot of Americans, whether poor, rich, from Pennslyvania to California, believe in the right to bear Arms, have faith in God and have a problem with the immigration issue. To crack on mainstream American values is to show elitism and that you are out of touch with mainstream American values.

Here's the difference. During a Republican debate, they were talking about the jobs of Detroit. Romney said under his presidency he'd bring back jobs to Detroit. Naturally this was bullshit and McCain called him on it saying we can't live in the past and we have to get these people into new jobs and focus on what America is good at now, not what we were good at 25 years ago.

That's politically smart. Taking a crack at mainstream America is not. Regardless of if you believe in what he said or not.

THUS, my poll is complex cuz you can believe in some of what he said but still think it was stupid of him to say.

See?

Mainstream America now means small town rural America? The rest of us are....? Just to note: My mom is from Pigeon Forge, TN. I have family in Emporium, PA. I come from small town values, as well as big town (NYC) values. Trying to divide America into "where God pays attention" is ignorant and divisive.

No, incorrect. Obama spreads it out because everyones votes count. Hillary does the firewall strategy and only campaigns in the big states.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-qGLDs-gAnZiUXD2NU51ry3j3dwD9017OOG0

Then what are his efforts in Pennsylvania?

Am I blind or something?

Totally blind.

That record amount of money he's spending in PA must be staying right where his bus parked in the southern part of the state, because I've seen maybe 2 commercials from him and that's it.

Don't listen to the radio much do you?

You really shouldn't neglect a major state.

He isn't.

Us bitter Pennsylvanians are just as willing to vote for him like the the inner city blacks are.

Considering that he is down by an average, that's AVERAGE, of 7% which is good news considering that Hillary was up by as much as 20% not to long ago...

She's telling rural PA that their vote counts, thank you very much.

And so did Obama.

NEXT!!

Now I never said anyone was at fault for anything, but it's showing us that Hilary doesn't crave that media attention that Obama so desperately depends on.

Hillary doesn't crave media attention? HAHAHAHA!!!!! WOW!!! That's pathetic.

And you don't think he toured Harrisburg, Philadelphia, etc, because there's a lot of inner city black voters there?

He wants to win the state. Nothing else to it. You really are paranoid aren't you?

Correct.

Well, you may use double standards but at least you admit it. :rolleyes:

So if Clinton campaigns in a state once she cares about it a great deal whereas if Obama campaigns in a state moderately he doesn't care about your vote. Right.

Correct.

No, incorrect. Obama spreads it out because everyones votes count. Hillary does the firewall strategy and only campaigns in the big states.

Look like IL Ruffino has no clue as to the strategy being employed by Obama and the strategy being employed by Clinton.

It looks to me that IL Ruffino hasn't done a whole lot of research either. Another uneducated voter to go with the other hundreds of thousands.

Look like IL Ruffino has no clue as to the strategy being employed by Obama and the strategy being employed by Clinton.

It looks to me that IL Ruffino hasn't done a whole lot of research either. Another uneducated voter to go with the other hundreds of thousands.

Are you really saying this?

You, of all people?

Are you really saying this?

You, of all people?

At least I looked at both candidates and listened to both candidates and looked at their records. I have been following both candidates since they have declared their candidacies and ignored all the bullshit that has been thrown around and focused on what is important.

You seem to enjoy soundbites and listen to spin to the point that you cannot decifer what is fact and what is fiction.

Besides that, Billary has no hope of actually winning the nomination short of bringing down the entire party around her. She is the one that wants to win this at any cost and anyone who has followed this campaign from the beginning knows it.

Mainstream America now means small town rural America? The rest of us are....? Just to note: My mom is from Pigeon Forge, TN. I have family in Emporium, PA. I come from small town values, as well as big town (NYC) values. Trying to divide America into "where God pays attention" is ignorant and divisive.

Hopeless Yankee that I am, I had to Google "Pigeon Forge". Home of Dollywood! Awesome!
Come to think of it, the hyperpatriotism of Dollywood et al. does (intentionally or not) tend to play into the myth that small-town/rural America is the "real" America and the rest of us are just fakers. However, that myth isn't a new development, it's at least as old as Thomas "yeoman farmer" Jefferson.

At least I looked at both candidates and listened to both candidates and looked at their records. I have been following both candidates since they have declared their candidacies and ignored all the bullshit that has been thrown around and focused on what is important.

You seem to enjoy soundbites and listen to spin to the point that you cannot decifer what is fact and what is fiction.

Besides that, Billary has no hope of actually winning the nomination short of bringing down the entire party around her. She is the one that wants to win this at any cost and anyone who has followed this campaign from the beginning knows it.

When did I even mention any issues?

I simply stated that Obama should think about, you know, start campaigning more in PA.

Stop it with the hostility.

As a non-American I can't vote in the primaries. I've gotta say I see so little difference between the two candidates in real terms I've decided to plump for Obama as he's a West Ham Utd fan, as opposed to Man U supporting Clinton. As people's lives will remain so little affected by the difference between one set of policies and the other, this seems like the most important issue to vote on.

If Obama wins we can be assured of international sanctions against Millwall at the very least.

My mom is from Pigeon Forge, TN.
:eek:

The mind boggles.

When did I even mention any issues?

I simply stated that Obama should think about, you know, start campaigning more in PA.

Stop it with the hostility.

Oh he's been campaigning hard. Just not the way you like it. Not a day goes by when I'm not hearing an Obama ad on the radio and that's on more frequently than seeing a Billary ad on TV.

Oh he's been campaigning hard. Just not the way you like it. Not a day goes by when I'm not hearing an Obama ad on the radio and that's on more frequently than seeing a Billary ad on TV.

You're in southwest PA, you know, the only area in PA he didn't ignore.

Put words in my mouth one more time and I'll report you.

You're in southwest PA, you know, the only area in PA he didn't ignore.

I guess you haven't heard the news that I now live in South Central PA where he was at recently when he talked at Thaddeus Stevens College. Ironiclly enough, named after a Republican Hawk who was instrumental in the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

Put words in my mouth one more time and I'll report you.

Whose putting words in your mouth? If I was, don't you think I'd have little quote boxes with your name in it with words you didn't say? That would be illegal.

And Obama has a hell of lot of volunteers working on his campaign all throughout this God Forsaken State. Why do you think that Billary's lead is only down to 7 points instead of 20? You do not hack 13 points off a lead like that without campaigning in the state and having a well oiled volunteer network.

FYI: In this area, I see a hell of a lot more Obama signs than I have Clinton signs. Especially bumberstickers.

:eek:

The mind boggles.

(No, they don't forge pigeons. They don't even forge things out of pigeons. It's much less interesting. There just used to be a lot of pigeons around the river that the forge was by before we shot all five billion of them, and now there are no pigeons.) :(

Maybe the reason Obama's not campaigning hard in PA is that he doesn't think he'll make up a 7-point deficit? Maybe? Logic? Bueller? Not that he hasn't been there, but Hillary's decided that a PA win will turn her campaign around, it seems to be much more of a make-or-break point for her.

Damnit.

Finally, reason.

This is all this debate is about! Why don't people see that?

So the thread is basically about how the media takes stories and runs with them, when really there's not much to go on? It's how people react with emotion rather than with their own logical self interest. It's true, especially in the last election. People voted for GWB against their own economic self interest and were labeled "values voters." Values voters was a term used to describe Karl Rove's appeal for "God, gays, and guns." it's more of the polarization that is a result of the GWB era. So the issue is not whether or not Obama insulted voters. It's about how the MSM makes huge deals out of idiotic shit. If that's what this whole debate is over we can end the thread now.

Barack Hussein Obama has been, unwittingly or otherwise, revealing his true beliefs for some time now. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and now this latest elitist, arrogant left-wing blast will most assuredly come back to bite him in the @$$ this fall. I am SO going to enjoy the GOP commercials featuring all these incidents. McCain is going to clean his clock.

Get ready for four more years of a GOP White House :D

Wow, we're back to the middle name thing again. Oh my God, Obama is an evil Muslim!!!!!! Help, run everyone, the Islamification is about to begin!!!!

Telling millions of people that their beliefs are merely reactions to external pressure could be seen as a tad condescending.

The funny things is that it's not a matter of beliefs. It's a matter of clinging to these issues as a matter of division between Americans. I am a Christian, like many of these people. I believe in God, I own several guns, and I believe American trade agreements should be fair to ALL Americans. I believe that gays not only have the right to exist, but they should be granted all the freedoms that the Constitution says every American should have. Focusing on these issues to divide Americans is a result of external pressures. Most of this pressure comes from politicians who want to exploit these people, rather than from the people themselves.

just because the media tries to play something up doesn't make it an issue, if it was you can say Fox News talking about that madrassa bullshit in relation to Obama is "debatable issue". Chealse Clinton refuses to talk about her father's infidelity? OMFG! Scandal! Anyone have a real issue to discuss?

I like this site :p

http://www.bittervoters.org/

The funny things is that it's not a matter of beliefs. It's a matter of clinging to these issues as a matter of division between Americans. I am a Christian, like many of these people. I believe in God, I own several guns, and I believe American trade agreements should be fair to ALL Americans. I believe that gays not only have the right to exist, but they should be granted all the freedoms that the Constitution says every American should have. Focusing on these issues to divide Americans is a result of external pressures. Most of this pressure comes from politicians who want to exploit these people, rather than from the people themselves.

Do you 'cling' to those beliefs out of frustration at your financial troubles? No? Neither do I (besides religion, I can describe myself similarly). My beliefs predate my financial troubles/lack of trouble, and have been fairly static in good times and bad. Maybe I'm just an exception to Obama's rule - one of the millions of round pegs that don't fit in the square hole he seems to think they belong to. :p

Do you 'cling' to those beliefs out of frustration at your financial troubles? No? Neither do I (besides religion, I can describe myself similarly). My beliefs predate my financial troubles/lack of trouble, and have been fairly static in good times and bad. Maybe I'm just an exception to Obama's rule - one of the millions of round pegs that don't fit in the square hole he seems to think they belong to. :p

Yes, but I believe you and I are far more educated than most of the people being referenced. The issue which changes things is education. It's the fault of politicians rather than the majority of American people. Oh, you and I are both registered Republicans as well. Although, I consider myself more Libertarian than anything else.

:eek:

The mind boggles.

It's surprising that I come from small town southern roots as well as the big city?

Yes, but I believe you and I are far more educated than most of the people being referenced. The issue which changes things is education. It's the fault of politicians rather than the majority of American people.

It's true that PA's displaced workers are likely to be less educated, but it's another thing entirely to claim that their opinions stem from their financial trouble - not the least because the collapse of manufacturing there is a relatively recent thing. Unless you believe that PA's working class were a bunch of carefree liberals until they lost their jobs and became "bitter" conservatives who suddenly cared about gun rights and NAFTA. :p Or maybe the world really is like Death Wish, huh?

Oh, you and I are both registered Republicans as well. Although, I consider myself more Libertarian than anything else.

Ah, but I couldn't have voted for Hildog if I were registered with the GOP. N/A for me. ;)

It's true that PA's displaced workers are likely to be less educated, but it's another thing entirely to claim that their opinions stem from their financial trouble - not the least because the collapse of manufacturing there is a relatively recent thing. Unless you believe that PA's working class were a bunch of carefree liberals until they lost their jobs and became "bitter" conservatives who suddenly cared about gun rights and NAFTA. :p Or maybe the world really is like Death Wish, huh?



Ah, but I couldn't have voted for Hildog if I were registered with the GOP. N/A for me. ;)

Perhaps I've read you slightly wrong. I don't believe that they were all liberals. I just believe that their thinking might have been different years ago. In the days when the mills were around and they were unionized, they may have been more likely to vote Democratic. Republican/Conservative politicians have played more to the religious aspects of their base, especially in the recent years.

Perhaps I've read you slightly wrong. I don't believe that they were all liberals. I just believe that their thinking might have been different years ago. In the days when the mills were around and they were unionized, they may have been more likely to vote Democratic. Republican/Conservative politicians have played more to the religious aspects of their base, especially in the recent years.

It still doesn't work. Even if it were true that some of them were more liberal or union-friendly in happier times, it wouldn't even begin to justify Obama's theories. Remember that this isn't the first time Obama has used "bitterness" to explain opposition to him - in his "race speech," he used bitterness to explain white opposition to affirmative action and welfare, to the effect that white people:

are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition ...

...hence the opposition. Again, no acknowledgement that people might have their *own* reasons for having beliefs Obama doesn't agree with. That, of course, was describing white people generally, rather than the "white working class" he was referring to with his latest. It's a pattern, though, of tarring the opposition with the "bitter" label, and it works to some degree with Obama's catchphrases and buzzwords that paint him as the antedote to that bitterness. Just don't scrutinize it, or you'll see it fall apart. :p

Do you 'cling' to those beliefs out of frustration at your financial troubles? No? Neither do I (besides religion, I can describe myself similarly). My beliefs predate my financial troubles/lack of trouble, and have been fairly static in good times and bad. Maybe I'm just an exception to Obama's rule - one of the millions of round pegs that don't fit in the square hole he seems to think they belong to. :p

i dont think that is obama's point.

i think he means that people VOTE for pro-gun candidates and for issues based in religious morality and against what should be their natural political leaning--the democratic party because the democratic party has no more addressed their economic interests than the republicans do but at least the republicans address their social issues (even though they are issues that the candidates only pay lip service to)

its not a vote based on stupidity--voting for the party that only really takes care of the rich--but on an understanding that "their" party isnt taking care of them either. better to get some representation (on conservative social issues) than none whatsoever.

its an answer to the question of why those who would seem to be natural democrats in the rust belt have been voting republican and why they are resistant to obama's message of change.

this is an attack on both mccain (as a republican) and clinton (because her husband did nothing for these voters) and both have to fight back hard against the charge that they dont give a shit about working class americans who have borne the brunt of job loss in globalizaton. i would rather see them address the issue of what to do about those americans who are the economic losers of the past 25-30 years than have them claim that these people have been mortally insulted and are happy happy with the deal they have gotten from the federal government.

Far be it from me to agree with Jimmy Carter on anything but I do have to agree with this:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Jimmy Carter reiterated the sentiments of many Democratic Party leaders on Sunday by saying that it would be a “serious mistake” for superdelegates to choose the candidate with fewer total delegates.

“I think it would be a very serious mistake for the Democratic Party…if a candidate had the majority of popular votes, the majority of delegates and a majority of states — all three — were the superdelegates to vote contrary to that, I think it would be very difficult to explain,” the former president told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

Carter is the latest in a series of prominent Democrats to say that nullifying the popular vote would be a flawed approach. He said that he “basically agreed” with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who on March 15 stated "if the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party.”

Carter: Going against popular vote would be 'serious mistake' (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/13/carter-going-against-popular-vote-would-be-serious-mistake/)

And I am adding him to the list of all of those democrats saying that the person with the popular vote should be the nominee.

i dont think that is obama's point.

i think he means that people VOTE for pro-gun candidates and for issues based in religious morality and against what should be their natural political leaning--the democratic party because the democratic party has no more addressed their economic interests than the republicans do but at least the republicans address their social issues (even though they are issues that the candidates only pay lip service to)

its not a vote based on stupidity--voting for the party that only really takes care of the rich--but on an understanding that "their" party isnt taking care of them either. better to get some representation (on conservative social issues) than none whatsoever.

its an answer to the question of why those who would seem to be natural democrats in the rust belt have been voting republican and why they are resistant to obama's message of change.

this is an attack on both mccain (as a republican) and clinton (because her husband did nothing for these voters) and both have to fight back hard against the charge that they dont give a shit about working class americans who have borne the brunt of job loss in globalizaton. i would rather see them address the issue of what to do about those americans who are the economic losers of the past 25-30 years than have them claim that these people have been mortally insulted and are happy happy with the deal they have gotten from the federal government.

That's been the Democratic line for at least 20 years (i.e., as long as I've been paying attention). Kerry hit it pretty hard in '04. That isn't what Obama said, however, even if it is part of the context (though I don't doubt that he'll say exactly that soon if he hasn't already). It's a standard Democratic talking point to say that it's in [whatever group]'s financial self-interest to vote Democratic. It isn't the same as this newer bit about bitterness causing the working class to focus on guns/NAFTA/religion/etc, even if it isn't entirely dissimilar in that it seeks to categorize the opposition.

I wouldn't mind hearing Obama explain why *he* goes to church, come to think of it. If bitterness puts the yokels in their pews, what puts ol' Barry there, eh? I wonder... :p

That's been the Democratic line for at least 20 years (i.e., as long as I've been paying attention). Kerry hit it pretty hard in '04. That isn't what Obama said, however, even if it is part of the context (though I don't doubt that he'll say exactly that soon if he hasn't already). It's a standard Democratic talking point to say that it's in [whatever group]'s financial self-interest to vote Democratic. It isn't the same as this newer bit about bitterness causing the working class to focus on guns/NAFTA/religion/etc, even if it isn't entirely dissimilar in that it seeks to categorize the opposition.

I wouldn't mind hearing Obama explain why *he* goes to church, come to think of it. If bitterness puts the yokels in their pews, what puts ol' Barry there, eh? I wonder... :p

and i think the more interesting question is what will he do to advance the economic interests of these people? what will he do that bill clinton didnt do? its all well and good to identify that the party has been saying "vote for us we'll take care of you" and then ignoring them after the election is over, its a whole nother story to have to come up with a way for the federal government to help bring good jobs back to these areas.

some people will always be "values voters" and if he doesnt represent their values then he cant get their votes. if those are conservative values he will never get their votes. the people he needs to reach are those who would vote democrat if they believe that he will do something for them and republican only if they believe that they will get nothing from a democrat.

I like this site :p

http://www.bittervoters.org/
I particularly like this part:

Pennsylvania Governor Says Everything is Great, No Need for Change (http://www.bittervoters.org/2008/04/pennsylvania-government-says-e.html)

Governor Ed Rendell has come out against Obama's comments, twisting and skewing like a campaign cronie should, but shockingly his position isn't that Obama has taken an elitist stance it is that Obama is over-estimating the problems of the working and middle-class.

Rendell appeared on CNN's John King show, Route 2008, last night to say that Obama was out of touch.:D

It’s surprising that I come from small town southern roots as well as the big city?
No, it’s surprising a town would be named Pigeon Forge.

However:

No, they don’t forge pigeons. They don’t even forge things out of pigeons. It’s much less interesting. There just used to be a lot of pigeons around the river that the forge was by before we shot all five billion of them, and now there are no pigeons.
I am appeased.

It's true that PA's displaced workers are likely to be less educated, but it's another thing entirely to claim that their opinions stem from their financial trouble - not the least because the collapse of manufacturing there is a relatively recent thing. Unless you believe that PA's working class were a bunch of carefree liberals until they lost their jobs and became "bitter" conservatives who suddenly cared about gun rights and NAFTA. :p Or maybe the world really is like Death Wish, huh?



Ah, but I couldn't have voted for Hildog if I were registered with the GOP. N/A for me. ;)

He didn't say their opinions stem from their financial troubles. He was asked why those people vote against their financial interests and he pointed out that they need those things to get them through their financial hardtimes.

You sincerely are ignoring the context here. He didn't claim the financial troubles were the origin of the beliefs. He claimed that they lean on them in hard times.

That's been the Democratic line for at least 20 years (i.e., as long as I've been paying attention). Kerry hit it pretty hard in '04. That isn't what Obama said, however, even if it is part of the context (though I don't doubt that he'll say exactly that soon if he hasn't already). It's a standard Democratic talking point to say that it's in [whatever group]'s financial self-interest to vote Democratic. It isn't the same as this newer bit about bitterness causing the working class to focus on guns/NAFTA/religion/etc, even if it isn't entirely dissimilar in that it seeks to categorize the opposition.

I wouldn't mind hearing Obama explain why *he* goes to church, come to think of it. If bitterness puts the yokels in their pews, what puts ol' Barry there, eh? I wonder... :p

Again, that's not what he said. He was replying to the question of why they vote against their financial interests, not why they hold those beliefs. Oddly, you admit that the context suggests this and that you're just assuming he believes what you're saying. Is that what conservatives called reason these days? "Yes, I know he didn't say this, but he really believes it. Just trust me on this."

He didn't say their opinions stem from their financial troubles. He was asked why those people vote against their financial interests and he pointed out that they need those things to get them through their financial hardtimes.

You sincerely are ignoring the context here. He didn't claim the financial troubles were the origin of the beliefs. He claimed that they lean on them in hard times.

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/

[I]t’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

No amount of interpretation is going to change the meaning of Obama's statement here. He's already backed off, and admitted he didn't communicate his point very well (a youTube link to that is somplace around p. 10 here). Hopefully he really didn't mean it that way, but his 'clarification' isn't encouraging. He was selling his appeal to 'cynical' downscale white voters - this was his analysis of their opposition to him - it started with "here's how it is:" if you're reading along. Whether he's saying that that opposition stems from bitterness today or from the beginning or in the last 25 years is academic. The fact that none of those is true is more relevant.

I might add that the bolded bit of psychology is more than a bit patronizing no matter how you slice it.

It's a pattern with Obama to discredit the opposition as responding to simple bitterness - it would be nice if he would acknowledge that there might, might be an intellectual basis for supporting someone else. It would raise my opinion of him, at least.

Again, that's not what he said. He was replying to the question of why they vote against their financial interests, not why they hold those beliefs. Oddly, you admit that the context suggests this and that you're just assuming he believes what you're saying. Is that what conservatives called reason these days? "Yes, I know he didn't say this, but he really believes it. Just trust me on this."

I guessed that it was part of the context because it usually is with Democratic candidates. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, there - not that it was the context but that it might be part of it. The belief (by Democrats) that the Democratic Party represent the voter's self-interest isn't new.

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/



No amount of interpretation is going to change the meaning of Obama's statement here. He's already backed off, and admitted he didn't communicate his point very well (a youTube link to that is somplace around p. 10 here). Hopefully he really didn't mean it that way, but his 'clarification' isn't encouraging. He was selling his appeal to 'cynical' downscale white voters - this was his analysis of their opposition to him - it started with "here's how it is:" if you're reading along. Whether he's saying that that opposition stems from bitterness today or from the beginning or in the last 25 years is academic. The fact that none of those is true is more relevant.

Um, so context doesn't change the meaning of words? Here I thought English worked that way. I guess they're going to have to change all of the rules regarding comprehension.

So when he was asked a question about why they vote a certain way and replied speaking to the way they vote, he wasn't talking about voting but why they believe what they do? Hmmm... And here I was applying the question to the answer. Silly me. I'll stop treating language as language and just take things out of context. You might want to try your argument on people who haven't seen the context. Unfortunately, most of us have and we aren't going to pretend it doesn't exist.

I might add that the bolded bit of psychology is more than a bit patronizing no matter how you slice it.

It's a pattern with Obama to discredit the opposition as responding to simple bitterness - it would be nice if he would acknowledge that there might, might be an intellectual basis for supporting someone else. It would raise my opinion of him, at least.

They are bitter. And the biggest argument behind the second amendment IS a general lack of trust in the government. People do turn to religion to support them when they don't have jobs or government support. This things are facts. He didn't say it was the origin of their beliefs, but why they cling to them. It's called English. I'm certain you're familiar with it.


I guessed that it was part of the context because it usually is with Democratic candidates. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, there - not that it was the context but that it might be part of it. The belief (by Democrats) that the Democratic Party represent the voter's self-interest isn't new.

Oh, I agree with that bit. Whether or not the democrats represent the interests of the majority, it's a fact GWB doesn't. I wanted GWB to win. I thought he was the better candidate in both elections. Howeer, I was wrong. It's hard to imagine a worse president during the past eight years. The scandals surrounding GWB make the Clinton scandals look like Bill passed gas in an elevator, while George was shooting people from a tower. The two presidents can't be compared.

Far be it from me to agree with Jimmy Carter on anything but I do have to agree with this:

Carter: Going against popular vote would be 'serious mistake' (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/13/carter-going-against-popular-vote-would-be-serious-mistake/)

And I am adding him to the list of all of those democrats saying that the person with the popular vote should be the nominee.

Do you happen to have that list handy? I am quite curious.

Um, so context doesn't change the meaning of words? Here I thought English worked that way. I guess they're going to have to change all of the rules regarding comprehension.

So when he was asked a question about why they vote a certain way and replied speaking to the way they vote, he wasn't talking about voting but why they believe what they do? Hmmm... And when you said the context didn't show what you're now claiming and that you wouldn't be surprised if it explicitly says it in the future, were you lying or just wrong? Because it doesn't match up with your no amount of context comment.

That's "no amount of interpretation," not "no amount of context." I linked to the relevant portion, which provides the context. The portion beginning "here's how it is" is what I take to be a summary of his opinion on why the 'cynical' white working class might not buy his candidacy. Unless you're going to divorce ideology from choice of candidate, a comment on one is a comment on the other. "Their jobs are gone, so they're clinging to these things" *does* imply a causal connection. I don't see any room for argument there.

They are bitter. And the biggest argument behind the second amendment IS a general lack of trust in the government. People do turn to religion to support them when they don't have jobs or government support. This things are facts. He didn't say it was the origin of their beliefs, but why they cling to them. It's called English. I'm certain you're familiar with it.

The right to self-defense is the argument I encounter most - in working-class PA, hunting might be more relevant. The so-called right to revolution isn't a big seller from what I've seen, at least among sane people. Of course, Obama lumped bigotry, religion, immigration and anti-NAFTA sentiment in with these - it isn't about guns or religion or anything else individually. He's not talking about religion as a social support, but as a political issue, in any case. He bit off a bit more than he could chew with that generalization, I do think.

Oh, I agree with that bit. Whether or not the democrats represent the interests of the majority, it's a fact GWB doesn't. I wanted GWB to win. I thought he was the better candidate in both elections. Howeer, I was wrong. It's hard to imagine a worse president during the past eight years. The scandals surrounding GWB make the Clinton scandals look like Bill passed gas in an elevator, while George was shooting people from a tower. The two presidents can't be compared.

I'm not looking to compare them.

That's "no amount of interpretation," not "no amount of context." I linked to the relevant portion, which provides the context. The portion beginning "here's how it is" is what I take to be a summary of his opinion on why the 'cynical' white working class might not buy his candidacy.

That's not the relevant context. The comment is an answer to a question. The question is obviously context. But hey, that's me and English rules agreeing again.


Unless you're going to divorce ideology from choice of candidate, a comment on one is a comment on the other. "Their jobs are gone, so they're clinging to these things" *does* imply a causal connection. I don't see any room for argument there.

Um, a cause to the clinging, not to the belief. I recognize the difference. Do you?



The right to self-defense is the argument I encounter most - in working-class PA, hunting might be more relevant. The so-called right to revolution isn't a big seller from what I've seen, at least among sane people. Of course, Obama lumped bigotry, religion, immigration and anti-NAFTA sentiment in with these - it isn't about guns or religion or anything else individually. He's not talking about religion as a social support, but as a political issue, in any case. He bit off a bit more than he could chew with that generalization, I do think.

You don't have a right to self-defense. The purpose of the second amendment is clear. It was designed to protect the people from its government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Sorry, there's me throwing English in your face again.

Meanwhile, he didn't generalize. He was asked why he thinks people vote against their financial self-interest and he answered why he thinks they do. The question contained assumptions that we are only talking about people voting against their financial self-interest and he focused on them and gave several reasons why they would. It was regarding the so called 'values voters" and his answer directly speaks to that. But that's me and my use of context in comprehension.


I'm not looking to compare them.

Good thing.

That's not the relevant context. The comment is an answer to a question. The question is obviously context. But hey, that's me and English rules agreeing again.

It is the relevant context. What I linked to is the entirety of the summary he gave on the point. He's well beyond simply answering that question by that point, and goes on at some length.

Um, a cause to the clinging, not to the belief. I recognize the difference. Do you?.

That's Obama, 2.0:

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=G6_mQ3h8lx0&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.slate.com/id/2188487/&iurl=http%3A//i.ytimg.com/vi/G6_mQ3h8lx0/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskLmi1OiOYI2tiTdVII-K1Dy

I'm talking about the comments I linked to, not his post-hoc reinterpretation.

You don't have a right to self-defense. The purpose of the second amendment is clear. It was designed to protect the people from its government.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Sorry, there's me throwing English in your face again.

Our right to self-defense comes from common law. It's not in the constitution, and never needed to be. Self-defense is a valid legal defense in both civil and criminal court to this day. The right to revolution wasn't popular with the Supreme Court in any case. :p But this isn't about gun control.

Meanwhile, he didn't generalize. He was asked why he thinks people vote against their financial self-interest and he answered why he thinks they do. The question contained assumptions that we are only talking about people voting against their financial self-interest and he focused on them and gave several reasons why they would. It was regarding the so called 'values voters" and his answer directly speaks to that. But that's me and my use of context in comprehension.

When the "they" he's talking about is millions of people, you're probably looking at a generalization, don't you think? :p But who knows, maybe he interviewed them all. I can't prove he didn't.


Good thing.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was interested in rehashing "Bush vs. Clinton" to begin with...

Edit: 2 a.m. is bedtime here - take care.

Ich bin ein Berliner.

He's talking about unemployment in small-town Pennsylvania, and whenever anyone points this out somebody says "no, we don't want to talk about the point he was making; we want to talk about this small sentence here..."

I particularly like this part:

Pennsylvania Governor Says Everything is Great, No Need for Change (http://www.bittervoters.org/2008/04/pennsylvania-government-says-e.html)

:D

Well Rendell is a class A fuckin idiot.

Do you happen to have that list handy? I am quite curious.

Pelosi has said it as well as several of her supporters.

These comments are interesting regarding "scared white men." Compare these comments to Obama's and you see there in a similar vein. It's like the Clinton's forget we have years of data on them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html

PA labor stats show Obama to be close to target.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/14/2008-04-14_obama_on_the_mark.html

The people who live in small towns that have suffered job loses do not have an exclusive on bitterness, a liking for guns, religion, small mindedness, bigotry, prejudice, intolerance and isolationism. Not to say this kind of thinking isn't more prevalent in rural areas - it is. Whether you can blame it on job loss is another matter altogether.

The question is, was it a good campaign move? I think Obama believes what he said, and took the chance of being politically incorrect because he thinks those same people he is referring to will recognize his sincerity and react to him like they did to George Bush; they will respect him for being a "straight shooter".

The difference is George Bush said things that might have been politically incorrect, but those things bolstered their egos and made them feel good about their hates and prejudices. Obama's statement isn't very flattering and no matter how much truth he thinks is in it, the people he is reaching out to will feel insulted and will reject him.

Ironic, isn't it? He's being blamed for having an "elitist" attitude, for "talking down" to the poor, small town folk, but he has actually given them way too much credit.

George Bush once said, "You can fool some of the people all the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." You know who he was taking about? Those same small town, small minded, regular old Americans.

Bush said roughly the same thing here. Bill Clinton, as you can see from a link I posted for later in the thread said the same thing as well. All this amounts to is political grandstanding and opportunism.

Obama was wrong to say it and wrong when he said it. Everyone going around trying to pretend like he told a ‘truth’ that people don’t like to hear just don’t get it.

What he said was nothing more that stereotyping bigotry. No different than if he said:

Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said.
“You go into these inner cities in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of inner cities in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And the minority poor in those inner cities fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to drugs or booze or antipathy to people who aren’t minorities like them or anti-white establishment sentiment or anti-higher education sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

He's painting with a broad brush and it’s broad brush painting at it’s very worst. Obama was wrong to say it because his conclusions are erroneous...

Pride in religious heritage, belief in the second amendment as a personal right, distrust of unknown strangers and a general belief that immigration to America should be done legally instead of illegally is normal behavior/opinion for many people (as sad, or not, as that may be, it speaks of the human condition, not the small town condition).

All of those opinions and viewpoints exist even when small towns in America are prosperous, none of those things developed in the last 25 years alone, it’s not a new development. For Obama to have suggested that small towns are in more trouble now, during the last 25 years, then previously when compared to all of American history, is pure claptrap. Some small towns are prosperous and grow (even today), some do not (even during prosperous times), the way it has always been. Pretending like he can dismiss the small town antipathy toward his positions because he claims they are bitter is no different than if a white male politician was dismissing inner city minority opinions because they are ‘bitter’ or irrational and don’t know what’s in their own best interest. Simple straight forward bigotry. Obama is an elitist for having said it, and he thinks he was wrong now too, that’s why he has apologized for saying it like he did.

You don't have to be from a small town to have lost your job, you don't have to be from a small town to be religious, you don't have to be from a small town to feel the government has overlooked you, you don't have to be from a small town to have different political view points than Obama does. He's messing up his chances to appeal to the middle masses.

He just got done telling us that the inner city Chicagoans are bitter and we have to 'understand' their misguided opinions when we hear Black Pastors say harsh things about the rest of America, now he's saying the small town people are bitter and we have to 'understand' their misguided opinions too. Excuse me Mr. Obama, is it only the liberal left and inner city rich that do agree with you? Everyone else is misguided because they are bitter and can't think straight? Poppycock.

1. The point is that he isn't dismissing their frustration and anger. He's pointing out that it exists. After the Wright (scandal) he pointed out that there was a lot of anger in the black community. He pointed out that black churches sometimes convey this anger upon the "white man." He made sure to say that those attitudes are divisive and will not help us to unite Americans behind a common cause. So he's already done what you claim would be horrible to do to the inner city black community.

2. You used the word irrational, not he. Unless you can find some sort of statistical information that shows booming small towns that are highly educated then his statement holds true.

3. This is exactly what George W. Bush and Karl Rove did in the last election. They used the fear and bigotry inherent in much of these rural areas as a lighting rod to drive people apart. These "values voters" were what turned the election for Bush. They used the lightening rod of gay issues to draw people out. Claiming that these types of statements are the sole property of Obama is just ignorant.

4. Clinging to political wedge issues is what brought us 8 years of GWB. It's also what brought us to the current economic situation we were in. It's brought more money at the top and less for the rest of the American people. These small town, and large town, voters went against their own economic self interest to vote for someone who was "like them." Ignoring that there is division in this country is not going to make it better. It's just more of the same with winks and nods.

You cannot prove that his "promises are not empty".

No, but you can look at the programs and ideas that he has developed to help get to where he wants us to go. You cannot prove something that hasn't happened yet. You can have a good indication of intent by the effort and planning someone has put in place to achieve these goals.

Maybe if Obama actually visited rural Pennsylvania he would know what he's talking about.

My god, man, Hilary and Bill have already been to my county several times, where are you, Barack?

Hell, Bill is here today..

Would you consider Altoona to be a small town? Johnstown? Allentown, Lancaster, Wilkes-Barre? Obama has been to these places and will continue visiting these areas, and the big cities of Philly and Pittsburg as well. The Clinton's may be making a big push in PA because it's their "firewall." Try taking a look at their trips to North Carolina and other states. My point is, candidates must decide their strategies that will help them do the best they can. Hillary is doing just that, so what's wrong with Obama doing the same?

Would you consider Altoona to be a small town? Johnstown? Allentown, Lancaster, Wilkes-Barre? Obama has been to these places and will continue visiting these areas, and the big cities of Philly and Pittsburg as well. The Clinton's may be making a big push in PA because it's their "firewall." Try taking a look at their trips to North Carolina and other states. My point is, candidates must decide their strategies that will help them do the best they can. Hillary is doing just that, so what's wrong with Obama doing the same?

Obama's wife is going to be in York

She's telling rural PA that their vote counts, thank you very much.

Sure, what are the populations of those rural towns? So while she's courting people in PA, by your logic, she is neglecting places like NC and IN. It should be noted that while PA holds 188 delegates, IN (84) and NC (134) hold 218. Hillary is all but ignoring them because she's down by over %20 in NC (RCP avg. 15.6) and her lead in IN is not very big. PA is her swan song.

So you're telling me she hasn't once campaigned there? I don't think you're right.

Touche, you're saying Obama has never campaigned in PA, which we can clearly show he has? You sling to rural PA because it's close to your heart. It doesn't mean she isn't practically ignoring the other states.

Correct.

???????

She's telling rural PA that their vote counts, thank you very much.

Dude, he's been all over Penn, just not specifically in your 'hood. That's not the same as 'ignoring rural PA' or telling them their vote doesn't matter. That's just not him getting into your specific 'hood. And aren't you loaded? He's been working areas where he's been weak, trying to close those gaps. Upper middle class is his demographic, right now he's trying to reach out to Clinton's.

But again, just because he hasn't come to your door doesn't mean he's ignoring a large swatch of the state. I know, it's fun to get your little town on the news (unless it's a song about a prison...then it's kind of annoying...) but a little scope is in order.

do you think that its NOT true that a segment of the country has been left behind by both parties? that they have been made promises for the past 20 years that no one has even tried to keep?

do you think that they ARENT bitter and cynical about being screwed over by both parties for so long?

Yes, they are bitter and cynical.

But gun ownership and religion are quintessential American habits that have nothing to do with bitterness and cynicism.

Small town Americans were raised on the idea of rugged individualism - the early pioneers had guns and religion - they weren't waiting for a government to rescue them with a handout.

Obama was just looking for a way to dig at gun owners, and people who actually believe in their religion (unlike himself, who hates gun ownership and goes to a church for show).

Obama was just looking for a way to dig at gun owners, and people who actually believe in their religion (unlike himself, who hates gun ownership and goes to a church for show).

Source?

Obama was just looking for a way to dig at gun owners, and people who actually believe in their religion (unlike himself, who hates gun ownership and goes to a church for show).

Thats funny. Did you see his statement after the NIU shooting? His statements were hardly anti gun ownership, which is funny because that would have been a very acceptable time for such a platform. His statements were basically that we should try to keep irresponsible people away from guns, but responsible people should be allowed their right to bear arms.

Also, he has been going to that church for years. He was married there and his kids were baptised there. You think thats for show? If it was for show he would have started going within the last 2 years.


Youre really just wrong.

Thats funny. Did you see his statement after the NIU shooting? His statements were hardly anti gun ownership, which is funny because that would have been a very acceptable time for such a platform. His statements were basically that we should try to keep irresponsible people away from guns, but responsible people should be allowed their right to bear arms.

Also, he has been going to that church for years. He was married there and his kids were baptised there. You think thats for show? If it was for show he would have started going within the last 2 years.

Youre really just wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. Obviously, he's been asleep at every one of Wright's sermons (or he must believe the insane crap that Wright spews, or he would have in his own words "left the church").

Yes, it's for show. You can go to a church long term just for show.

If you read all of his stuff, he's pretty anti-gun. He sides with the District of Columbia in their current case at the Supreme Court (funny, nearly every constitutional law scholar is against him). He wants a national registration and a national roundup.

If he was pro-gun, he would court the NRA and have their endorsement.

Yes, they are bitter and cynical.

But gun ownership and religion are quintessential American habits that have nothing to do with bitterness and cynicism.

Small town Americans were raised on the idea of rugged individualism - the early pioneers had guns and religion - they weren't waiting for a government to rescue them with a handout.

Obama was just looking for a way to dig at gun owners, and people who actually believe in their religion (unlike himself, who hates gun ownership and goes to a church for show).

I know it's already been said multiple times in this thread, but I think there's an idea that bears repeating.

Obama never claimed, and I don't believe he ever intended to claim, that people believe in God and the 2nd amendment and conservative immigration policy because they're poor. What he said was that people in economically depressed areas CLING to these things due to their economic status-- meaning that they place added importance on these issues. Their views on these issues don't change according to poverty. What changes is how important those issues become when time to vote rolls around. Many small-towners have conservative beliefs, regardless of economic status. But those in more depressed areas will often place less importance on economic issues (ill-advisedly, according to Obama, and I tend to agree) and place more on social issues like those Obama listed.

So just a quick recap: Poverty doesn't cause people to have conservative social views; it just (often, not always) causes people with conservative social views to place more importance on these particular views, instead of voting out of economic interest.

Now, hopefully, we can stop assuming that Obama thinks that poverty causes Republicans. He doesn't.

If he was pro-gun, he would court the NRA and have their endorsement.

1- The NRA won't endorse him even if he gives a gun to every high school nutcase for them to go a-shooting.

2- I think you know that and would just rather see him LOSING votes for moderates.

I know it's already been said multiple times in this thread, but I think there's an idea that bears repeating.

Obama never claimed, and I don't believe he ever intended to claim, that people believe in God and the 2nd amendment and conservative immigration policy because they're poor. What he said was that people in economically depressed areas CLING to these things due to their economic status-- meaning that they place added importance on these issues. Their views on these issues don't change according to poverty. What changes is how important those issues become when time to vote rolls around. Many small-towners have conservative beliefs, regardless of economic status. But those in more depressed areas will often place less importance on economic issues (ill-advisedly, according to Obama, and I tend to agree) and place more on social issues like those Obama listed.

So just a quick recap: Poverty doesn't cause people to have conservative social views; it just (often, not always) causes people with conservative social views to place more importance on these particular views, instead of voting out of economic interest.

Now, hopefully, we can stop assuming that Obama thinks that poverty causes Republicans. He doesn't.

People aren't "clinging" to guns and religion because of their economic status.

Period.

They enjoy owning firearms, and enjoy believing in God because that's how they were raised.

They are also raised in the spirit of "rugged individualism" which runs counter to the beliefs of anyone who thinks that the government is here to hand out money.

Obama is upset because he can't buy the votes of gun owners and evangelicals by promising them federal money.