Obama Fires Back On “Bitter” Comments, Says It Was Just Clumsy Talking

What a joke:

Sen. Barack Obama sounded a defiant note tonight when asked during a candidate forum about whether his words to a group of San Francisco donors pegged him as an elitist who is out of touch with the average voter.
“My words may have been clumsy, which happens surprisingly often on a presidential campaign,” Obama said, a remark that drew laughter from the crowd assembled at Messiah College for the “Compassion Forum”. Obama added that he had meant to tout — not demean — the redemptive power of religion for those facing hardship. “Religion is a bulwark,” Obama said. “What I was referring to was in no way demeaning a faith that I myself embrace.”

Here, once again, is what Obama actually said:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them — 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’ve gone through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

That doesn’t sound clumsy to me at all. That sounds like a man saying exactly what he means. Ted Kennedy saying “Osama” instead of “Obama” is clumsy. Obama saying “it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations” is clear and concise.
But, to be fair, I’m willing to grant that Obama might not have thought he was insulting those who practice a religion he himself “embraces” given that he attends a church where conspiracy theories about AIDS being an American government conspiracy are preached from the pulpit.
I don’t know how to describe the congregation of a church like that other than “bitter.”

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array Hannitized

    Further, don’t be clumsy in your logic because you fail to recognize a valid response. Crafting an argument as “Bush did it too” is a mischaracterization.

    Your little following is suggesting that Obama cant be trusted with the presidency if he is clumsy with language.

    To point out the king of clumsy language is already IN the white house is a very valid argument. The fact that you can’t see it shows the limited intelligence you have or it shows the deliberate dishonesty to trash a perfectly valid argument that explains away a stupid one.

  • Hannitized

    Obama’s language was only “clumsy” in the sense that he fucked up and said what was actually on his mind. I don’t mind clumsy language in the Oval Office, I do mind extremist snobs.

    Well obviously, you were under the wrong impression.

    Why are you ignoring the paragraph that I provided, that put his comments in proper context? Why are you ignoring that he was talking about votes, and how they cling to things they think they can change? Why are you ignoring that the bitter remark refers to people who are bitter about the fact that Washington isnt turning around the economic situation like they would prefer?

    Is it because you find it an easy way to attack Obama? Or is it because you like to ignore reality? I don’t know which one it is, but either option doesn’t put you in very good company.

  • Hannitized

    HG,

    Don’t take the bait. I was just rambling non-sense like 2Motel6. I wouldnt expect him to admit that any more that he/she should expect me to admit its accusations.

  • robert108

    I am bitter about the types of behavior I see from Americans who distort and misrepresent their political foes out of malice.

    Then you should be doubly bitter about Obama; not only does he distort and misrepresent his political foes, but he also distorts and misrepresents what he actually stands for: the Black Liberation theology, Marxist control for the govt over private lives, collectivism driving out individualism, the hateful spew of Wright, and the divide and conquer to subvert tactics of Saul Alinsky.

  • Hannitized

    Nice try, H, but you are holding an empty sack.

    And your shoulders hold and empty head.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    rbbIFCWT.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    YDKNAFAWITG

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Could it be because you are dishonest? Or do you just enjoy making straw men, so you can look tough knocking them down?

    Really, Rob. Your tactics are both juvenile and irritating.

    Translation: Wah!

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    JBWCYFHO

  • HG

    H,

    You’re getting silly now. What would you call frustration from perceived economic disenfranchisement that manifests itself in a disproportional support for unrelated issues if not misplaced?

    Easy big fella.

  • robert108

    You wont, you can’t and if you tried I doubt you would in any convincing way.

    Such prejudice is characteristic of the arrogant.

  • 2Hotel9

    And you still refuse to address the fact that your Party has created, and continues to exacerbate the problems that Democrat Voters are bitter about. Keep spinning, racebaitingpovertypimp, its all you can do.

  • Hannitized

    What are you going to say now Rob?

    Now that I have demonstrated that Obamas remarks proceeded Webs by two years… and that they not only match Webbs remarks, but also Obamas remarks from the days after Pennsylvania.

    Now, Rob will obfuscate, and cry that he heard what Obama said (in SF)….even though in Robs head, he merely took what Obama said out of context.

    Obama being interviewed by Charlie Rose back on Nov. 23, 20041 and he gives a fuller description of what he was trying to get at in his Pennsylvania remarks:

    CHARLIE ROSE: But they seem too, you know, there`s a book about what`s wrong with Kansas, as you know.

    BARACK OBAMA: Right, and my mother is from Kansas, so, yes.

    CHARLIE ROSE: And basically, the book argues that people in hardship cases, people who have not gotten the best end of the American dream, are voting on faith issues and morality issues rather than on economic interests.

    BARACK OBAMA: Right.

    CHARLIE ROSE: Which suggests that that has somehow become a touch stone in a way that there`s…

    BARACK OBAMA: Well, I`ll tell you an example. There`s a town that I spoke about in my speech, actually, in Illinois. And it`s I think representative of many towns in the Midwest. Galesburg, Illinois. They`ve got 36,000 people. They`ve lost 4,000 jobs in the last two years; 20 percent of their employment base collapses, because companies move out to Mexico.

    So you sit down and you talk to union workers, 50, 55-year-old guys, who — the best that`s being offered to them is retraining to be nurses assistants. Right, these guys with beards and tough guys who are used to handling heavy machinery.

    They`re not optimistic about the prospects for them to be able to attain the kinds of economic security that they had under the old system. So they`ve got insecurity in their economic life. They don`t know where their health care is coming from. They don`t know what`s happening with their pension.
    What they do know is that they can go out with their friends and hunt and feel a sense of camaraderie. And there`s a connection between hunting and them going out with their father to hunt, just as there is a connection maybe for their wives to going to church and going with their grandmother to church.

    And if we don`t have plausible answers on the economic front, and we appear to be condescending towards those traditions that are giving their lives some stability, then they`re going to opt for at least that party that seems to be speaking to the things that are giving — that still provide them something solid to stand on.

    CHARLIE ROSE: And some sense that they`re not being looked down on.

    BARACK OBAMA: Exactly.

    CHARLIE ROSE: Somebody who does not think that they are contemptuous of them and their lifestyle and their beliefs.

    BARACK OBAMA: Absolutely.

    1The Charlie Rose Show
    November 23, 2004 Tuesday
    SHOW: THE CHARLIE ROSE SHOW 11:00 PM EST
    Interview with Barack Obama
    BYLINE: Charlie Rose
    GUESTS: Barack Obama
    SECTION: NEWS; Domestic

    Again, youve been acting like an idiot on this issue Rob. And I took great pleasure proving it.

  • 2Hotel9

    Notice that sannitized, theracebaitingpovertypimp, still refuses to admit that his Party, the Democrat Party, is the cause of lost jobs and disenfranchisement of people in America. Instead it blahblahs about semantical crap and attempts to distract people from Obamoid’s actual words. The words that came out of his mouth when he thought he was in a super secret, private meeting with a group of uber-wealthy leftards.

    And the best part? The mostess goodest part of all? He walk out of the Koffee Klatch with a big, fat, juicy donation. From the Getty family. Where does all their money come from? What industry are they bigtime movers&shakers in?

    Hello,,,,Hello! sannitized? What industry has made(and continues to make) the Gettys so vastly wealthy? Here is a hint. It is one of the industries that has made Algore so vastly wealthy, and it ain’t zinc mining.

  • Hannitized

    It’s a fact you trot this little canard out every time you don’t have an argument.

    Robby, are you saying that my information about Jim Webb isn’t an argument?

    Please tell me you are that much of a dishonest hack.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    Heh.

    Used to be I didn’t think much of country music. May have to reconsider.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    realitydenyingblackwaterboob contributes:

    If the shoe fits, eat it.

    Spoken like a true cracker.

  • Hannitized

    The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of “God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag” while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246

    Strange, but Webb doesn’t say anything about frustration or bitterness. Instead, he only indicates that when voters dont think they can change the economic situation, they focus on emotional issues.

    You know…..issues that you are emotional about.

    And regarding the statement Obama said, but didnt mean, well, what does he say?

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

    So even at Obamas worst, he is only saying that people cling to these emotional issues (A, B, C, D), because they are frustrated that they cant change the economic ones (Y)…..they “cling” to those issues as a way to explain the frustration they have about (Y).

    Again….NOTHING was misplaced. Nobody said they were frustrated about A,B,C and D. Instead only that they cling to them and that they are emotional issues.

    Nice try HG.

  • Hannitized

    What would you call frustration from perceived economic disenfranchisement that manifests itself in a disproportional support for unrelated issues if not misplaced?

    Way to distort buddy. Who used the word “disproportional”?

    Are you debating me or the voices in your head?

  • Hannitized

    Simple-minded and still condescending and offensive. The implication remains no matter how you word it–small town Americans vote these other issues and cling to these “bulwarks” out of misplaced frustration.

    Show me a sentence where those words were used. You wont, you cant, because they weren’t.

    You imagine he said that because you desire it. But it is not the reality and you know it.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    SYPHNCWSTA

  • HG

    Would still vote on the other issues, but wouldn’t be as passionate or emotional about voting on Guns, Gay Marriage or clinging to Religion, cultural identity as strongly.

    H, these are your own words based on your understanding of what Obama said. Don’t tell me you meant to say something else.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    I will refer you to Jim Webb, who very clearly and articulately, discussed the same sentiment Obama had, but in a more agreeable manner.

    So, Hannitized: are you saying the problem is that Obama is less than clear and less than articulate?

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Please tell me you are that much of a dishonest hack.

    Translation: Wah!

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    It was clumsy getting caught! He was, after all, speaking to a bunch of Left Coast liberals at the time. He didn’t expect to get ratted out by his homeys!

  • HG

    You still have not admitted that your party ruined the economy by starting a war we didnt need to be in, introduced AQ in Iraq in incredible numbers and jeapordized the stability of the ME.

    H, Admitting we’re at war is a good start.
    Fighting AQ in Iraq is a hell of a lot easier and safer than fighting them in Iran, or here on our own turf. The idea that “stability” existed in the ME is laughable.

    Nor have you admitted that you guys have ruined the US economy, ruined mortgage rates, raised gas prices, increased the unemployment rate, brought in more illegal aliens. Why haven’t you admitted this you race-baiting, war-monger?

    Ruined the US economy? Did Clinton ruin the US economy at the end of his term? Could it be that economic cycles exist? Could it be that things aren’t quite as bad as you make them out to be? BTW, what increase in taxes would correct our economic woes? Ruined mortgage rates? They are still at historic lows. Raised gas prices? Who is stifling supply by forbidding any US infrastructure? Brought in more illegals? I thought you wanted more illegals? It is your liberal social spending and stupid laws that promise we Americans will pay for all illegals that is drawing them in. H, really, you got to get back down to earth my friend.

  • Hannitized

    I believe BO holds to similar nonsense based on his first statement and that his second was damage control.

    It would be one thing if he wasn’t talking about economic issues and if people are going to vote on them or not. But he was, and that changes everything.

  • Hannitized

    If the shoe fits, eat it.

    Ha! Nicely said.

    But I think it is funny how Robby-boy likes to leave this part out….EVERY TIME.

    “People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them,” Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. “So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

    Ahh…now don’t read this fellas. It might get in the way of your hatred for Obama.

    I recommend some orange juice, it goes well with your bitter hatred for someone who actually speaks honestly.

    Here is yet another example of someone who is not bitter, or any of the things Obama talks about.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tgkmO9VV8Y&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYmFAwhmqaU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXUI5hAxFYI&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjFiHENNf9Q&feature=related

    BItter? *Pshaw*

  • HG

    Having MORE passion doesn’t mean you don’t have any.

    H, I think you succeeded in making this point. From Obama’s first remarks it sounded as if STA’s only gave a rip about God, guns, immigration, etc., because of frustration over econmic issues; not that bitterness and frustration gave extra attention to these other issues. But regardless, the degree or amount of extra attention BO thinks is directed at these other issues remains in question. It has long been common democrat psycho-babble that STA’s are somehow handicapped by our “need” for foundational and constitutional absolutes which keeps us closed-minded to “change” (ie, a living interpretation of the constitution that would allow for socialism in America). I believe BO holds to similar nonsense based on his first statement and that his second was damage control.

  • Hannitized

    So, Hannitized: are you saying the problem is that Obama is less than clear and less than articulate?

    Not really. What I am saying is that Obama was speaking to people who understand what he meant….we know this. This is something that we have been talking about for years.

    The only reason he was taken out of context was because his language at the time was clumsy and he didn’t have time to write it in an opinion piece, as did Webb.

  • Hannitized

    I’ll make it as simple as I can. If I disagree with issue Y, feel helpless to affect Y, and subsequently am frustrated and bitter over it, then carry that emotion to issues A, B, C, & D, I have misdirected and misplaced frustration and bitterness that A, B, C, & D does not warrant.

    Again, HG, you keep changing the argument to suit yours.

    NOBODY said that voters carry frustration over to other emotional issues. Where did anybody say that?

    I notice you didnt provide a quote. No evidence to support your claim. Instead you only offer your feeble interpretation of what you THINK someone said then dismiss me as a Liberal for not understanding your point. A point that has no logic applied to it.

    Go ahead, RUN Forrest,…….Run.

  • HG

    Where did anybody say that?

    Would still vote on the other issues, but wouldn’t be as passionate or emotional about voting on Guns, Gay Marriage or clinging to Religion, cultural identity as strongly.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    IDTS

  • robert108

    …Obama’s sentiments are a long standing Democratic understanding of the current times.

    Exactly! Glad to see you finally admit the contempt you lefties feel toward “the proletariat” in America.

    Dems have always practiced the politics of division; the Dem Party is an assemblage of “groups”.

  • Hannitized

    Honesty, is such a lonely word.

    Rob likes to pretend Obama was just lying when he said he used clumbsy words. Because everybody knows, presidents say exactly what they mean.

    No president could ever be THIS clumsy. (see below)

    On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.” He and other US officials have said that renegade Islamic fundamentalist Osama bin Laden is the most likely suspect in the attacks.

    His use of the word “crusade,” said Soheib Bensheikh, Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille, France, “was most unfortunate”, “It recalled the barbarous and unjust military operations against the Muslim world,” by Christian knights, who launched repeated attempts to capture Jerusalem over the course of several hundred years.

    Unfortunate, yes. Intentional? What say you Rob? Do you have the honesty to see right and wrong or do you only see left and right?

  • Hannitized

    2Motel6,

    You are dumber than dumb. I can’t even believe you can walk, let alone type and/or tie your shoes when you get up in the morning.

    Stop pretending that you are significant or that you are making an argument.

  • robert108

    Nor have you admitted that you guys have ruined the US economy, ruined mortgage rates, raised gas prices, increased the unemployment rate, brought in more illegal aliens. Why haven’t you admitted this you race-baiting, war-monger?

    None of what you say is true; I guess that’s the main reason. The US economy is not “ruined”, despite the obstruction of the Dem Congress since ’06, when the bad stuff started; Carter and Clinton’s affirmative action on home loans is the foundation of the mortgage “crisis”; the unemployment rate is lower than Clinton’s was when he claimed “the greatest economy ever”; fighting terrorism after Clinton enabled 9/11 by his ignoring Al Qaeda’s rise during the Nineties; Illegal aliens are shared by this administration, but it’s not totally responsible for it. The war against Islamic terrorism has provided Iraq with its first elected govt in 5000 years.
    You’re just wrong with your typical leftie talking points. Time for your brain transplant, little dude!

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    “xxx xxxx”

    I’d like to buy a vowel…

    Just what are you hiding there RZ?
    What do the x’s stand for?

  • Bat One

    Chief,

    I’m not surprised by what you describe… or Obama’s “bitter” remarks either. After all, he is a Democrat, so the presumptuous arrogance and condescension are to be expected. But then, so too is the shallow thinking. Why, for example, would he disparage people for rejecting free trade, when he himself opposes it? Why disparage religion, after spending 20 years at the feet of Rev. Wright and then expending so much effort to explain and excuse Wright’s hateful bigotry?

    The more they speak, Mr. and Mrs. Obama, the more they reveal about who they really are. And what they each reveal is increasingly ugly and unsuitable for the office they seek.

    Bearing in mind Rev. Wright’s vehement Black Liberation Theology, I wonder what sort of answer would be forthcoming if someone were to ask the Obamas how they both feel about the question of so-called “reparations” to African-Americans for slavery?

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    BatOne, because he is an incompetent person who has no moral compass. He has revealed the nasty underbelly of our population. He, in my opinion is like Al Sharpton, JJ and others who are the “xxx xxxx”.
    The Truth: I attended a “minority” meeting of our state education association about thirty years ago. They had to meet in order to select a “minority” on the board of directors. About 4-5 “xxx xxxxs” stood up and told every else to sit down and shut up. It reminded me of something you might see in a barnyard. Several roosters trying to out “xxxx” the other one. No attempt to use roberts rules of order, no secret vote, no discussion. A complete 180 degree reversal from the rest of the SCEA. I got an eyefull of how they operate and I don’t see much improvement over the last thirty years.

  • robert108

    Why are you ignoring that the bitter remark refers to people who are bitter about the
    fact that Washington isnt turning around the economic situation like they would prefer?

    Because it’s typical leftie bullshit; most Americans just want the govt to keep its hands out of their pockets, and let them make their money without excessive taxation and regulation, and without “programs” that only benefit leftie special interests.

  • Bat One

    Rob likes to pretend Obama was just lying when he said he used clumbsy words. Because everybody knows, presidents say exactly what they mean.

    H,

    You are being more than a little disingenuous here… and you know it.

    Mr. Bush has made public mis-speaking into a rustic art form (although admittedly much of it is for effect – tweaking the tails of those who still abhor him for beating AlGore, who really IS every bit as dumb as his supporters envision Mr. Bush to be).

    Obama, on the other hand, has gone out of his way to make high oratory his hallmark… at least as long as there is a teleprompter close by. Indeed, it can be argued that platitudes and soaring oratory are about all Mr. Obama has offered voters thus far.

    Suggesting that Obama’s “bitterness” remarks are mere verbal clumsiness simply won’t wash. Obama’s public appearances and speeches are too well crafted for any serious observer to fall for that clumsy spin.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    Oh now that’s just clumsy talk.

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    Bat One. Now that would be an interesting question! I wonder how long it will take before someone brings up that question of “reparations” — yet another scam, or in JJs world, shakedown. For readers: I try not to repeat nasty and “unspoken words”. That is how I first learned and heard the word nigger.
    On topic, these people have lived in and exposed themselves to their nasty base.
    He has immersed himself in; walks and talks to them, but turns around and attends functions such as the Getty mansion in SF.

    He spoke what he means and feels because it came natural.

    Off for the day to do constructive things for the citizens of SC and my family.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    RZ:

    For readers: I try not to repeat nasty and “unspoken words”. That is how I first learned and heard the word nigger.
    On topic, these people have lived in and exposed themselves to their nasty base.
    He has immersed himself in; walks and talks to them, but turns around and attends functions such as the Getty mansion in SF.

    He spoke what he means and feels because it came natural.

    Translation:

    For readers: I try not to repeat nasty and “unspoken words”. That is how I first learned and heard the word nigger. (But good job sneaking it in)
    On topic, these people (niggers) have lived in and exposed themselves to their nasty (nigger) base.
    He has immersed himself in; walks and talks to them (niggers), but turns around and attends functions such as the Getty mansion in SF (white).

    He spoke what he means and feels because it came natural (nigger).

    No need to repeat nasty unspoken words there RZ, you come across loud and clear without them.

  • Hannitized

    Obama is about as likely to get a fair hearing on SAB as McCain will get on MoveOn.org, DailyKos or the Huffington Post. You know that.

    Ok, your comparison, not mine. It seems to me that many people on this site like to refer to DailyKos and its commentaries in the least flattering way possible. If you think they are on par, then I can only say that I appreciate your candor.

    What I would like to see, is people who are just intellectually honest. I am sort of disgusted by people who fail to criticize Bush for his “Crusade” remark but come down heavily on Obama, who made a point, as he sees it.

    If you read the paragraph I posted, his comments come into perfect context.

    Make your agruments, provide the supporting evidence, get over your angst about Rob and avoid the name-calling.

    Hmmmm. Did you even read the comments from Bat? Exactly how does my comments differ from his? Why not come down on Bat for using descriptive words like:

    After all, he is a Democrat, so the presumptuous arrogance and condescension are to be expected. But then, so too is the shallow thinking.

    Wright and then expending so much effort to explain and excuse Wright’s hateful bigotry?

    The more they speak, Mr. and Mrs. Obama, the more they reveal about who they really are. And what they each reveal is increasingly ugly and unsuitable for the office they seek.

    So let me see if I understand your point pparets? I can’t say Rob is hateful or lies….but you can say Obama lies, is hateful, bigoted, ugly and shallow minded.

    Got it? Any other advice you have for me that both handicaps me and enables my opponents?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    WWJBD?

  • Bat One

    “Clumsy Talking” is itself a pretty clumsy attempt at spinning to cover up remarks that Obama apparently feels quite comfortable in making.

    But what these remarks reveal about Obama is quite nearly monstrous. For it is his party, the Democrats, and Obama himself, who are opposed to free trade, despite the advantages to the American worker. And if Obama really feels so contemptuous of “religion” why has he spent the last 20 at the feet Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a member of Trinity United Church of Christ?

  • pparets

    Hannitized: Yes! Stick to the facts and back them up! That’s how any effective debater operates. Or are you suggesting that it’s a good idea to sink to the lowest common denominator; that you are more effective if you too sling around words like ‘liar’, ‘retard’, etc?

    The difference between SAB and DailyKos et al, is that you would never be allowed to post anything which they disagree with. Here, you are free to do so. We can thank Rob for that.

    Some people here are perfectly happy when you resort to the same childish methods they use. That way, they don’t have to attack your message, they can just attack you , which they do with relish!

    btw: I don;’t ever recall calling Obama a liar, shallow, or ugly. Mockery and name-calling closes minds, it doesn’t open them.

  • pparets

    Hannitized: I would hope that bloggers could express their views about Senator Obama’s ‘bitterness’ comments and what it may say about him without being labeled ‘haters’. come on now.

    Obama is about as likely to get a fair hearing on SAB as McCain will get on MoveOn.org, DailyKos or the Huffington Post. You know that.

    Make your agruments, provide the supporting evidence, get over your angst about Rob and avoid the name-calling.

  • http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

    Hannitized,

    YOU ARE A LIAR. Why don’t you scroll up and read your own little bit of “information” that you provided us:

    “People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them,” Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening.

    You quoted Obama from a speech after his “bitter” remarks, when he was trying to distance himself from his “bitter” remarks.

    At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday.

    Now please tell me who, you or Rob, is providing the misinformation?

  • Hannitized

    btw: I don;’t ever recall calling Obama a liar, shallow, or ugly. Mockery and name-calling closes minds, it doesn’t open them.

    Sorry, I meant YOU as in….your side. I guess I was just clumsy with my words….it happens.

    Yes! Stick to the facts and back them up! That’s how any effective debater operates. Or are you suggesting that it’s a good idea to sink to the lowest common denominator; that you are more effective if you too sling around words like ‘liar’, ‘retard’, etc?

    Hmm? Then why not lecture Bat? Why me?

    Besides, that repertoire seems to have landed Ted Nugent a fairly consistent spot on Fox News. It seems your side tends to relish in that behavior when it benefits you? Where have you seen a leftists get so much air time on a national news channel?

    I get your point, and I tend to agree. But please, tend to your own flock before lecturing me. If your reasoning is because you would like to engage in a good debate with me, I hear that more than I hear your lecturing.

    I only reflect back what I see.

  • robert108

    Just as I put Obamas statements in proper context.

    No you don’t; you create a context to excuse his telling the truth about how he regards “the proletariat” of America. The “proper context” of Obama’s utterances is the Black Liberation Theology of his Church of over 20 years, plus the Marxist teachings of his political mentor, Saul Alinsky. He’s a stealth black separatist and leftie subversive, whose true agenda is now being revealed.

  • http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

    So guns and antipathy toward people are also bulwarks? I know it’s a little unfair to nitpick someone’s speech after the fact… but at least Bushisms could be dismissed as plain nonesensical. Obamaisms, on the other hand, seem to lend themselves to easy misapplication. What if he says “fire the missile” but really means it in the Donald Trump, “you’re fired” sense?

    And I don’t know how the Clinton administration got anything done, what with all the cabinet members fiercely debating the semantics of basic words like sleep and is.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    realitydenyingblackwaterboob,

    You have no business whatsoever “translating” anyone else’s posting.

    none.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    I recommend some orange juice, it goes well with your bitter hatred for someone who actually speaks honestly.

    Yep, finally Obama speaks honestly. And now that we know what he thinks, America is unlikely to vote for an elitist who talks down to Americans.

  • Hannitized

    Well here is your real debate, Hannitized. Webb is full of crap. The Democrats are full of crap. This pseudo-Marxist claptrap about people turning to God and guns out of frustrations is just patent nonsense to anyone who actually knows the people these comments were directed at.

    You are misunderstanding the argument. What can I do other than explain it and provide comments in proper context?

    I don’t need to call you a liar, and I don’t wont call you stupid. But I cant do any more for you at this point.

    “People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them,” Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. “So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.” – Obama, in proper context

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them — like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years…

    That’s funny. I just came back from visiting a few small towns in Pennsylvania.

    Many people I talked to don’t like Obama for his surrender to the Muslim enemy.

    Imagine that!

    A growing number of smart ones realize that high taxes and unreasonable union demands killed the steel and industry trades in that area about 30 years ago.

    Obama is too much socialism for many in what is already a very Democrat area.

  • Rob Hogan

    “Just clumsy talking?” And he wants to be president? I can just vision how his callous, and clumsy talk will start WW3.

    I just don’t buy it “Hussein”.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    If the shoe fits, eat it.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    pparets,

    I’m not sure why you choose to wrestle with a pair of pigs. But you are indeed getting filthy and they seem to be enjoying it.

    Derision and ridicule is about the extent of what they are due in polite society.

  • Hannitized

    You provided quotes from a different speech, and then quotes from someone not Obama. You called Rob a liar in regards to the Obama speech, stick to that speech please. All other, non-speech, arguments are specious and irrelevant.

    OMG. Wow….you really have no idea what an argument is, do you Hairy?

    Providing quotes from a different speech provides context. Quoting Webb supports my argument that this understanding of why some people focus on things they can actually change, vs things that are more difficult to control (economic situation).

    The fact that you can’t recognize the basic principles of debate show that you are really nothing more than a partisan hack, who’s only ambition is to distort an insult.

    Again, this is why I usually just throw insults, because only few of you are capable or honest enough to deserve my arguments.

    You aren’t so you can kindly buzz off.

  • http://thebigfeed.blogspot.com/ The Big Feed

    Here’s more of Obama’s clumsy talking from 2004… Watch the whole video…he says the same things and then admits the democrats have to think of way to appear not to be condescending about things liike hunting and religion…just clumsy talk y’all

    http://thebigfeed.blogspot.com/

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    Hannitized, the

    Grand Mufti of the mosque in Marseille

    conveniently left out the parts about the Muslims ravaging many parts of Europe and Asia, even those who may have used Christianity for their own political purposes.
    But on topic. Obama’s votes on gun control, his attendance in what he calls a church, and what was and is preached there, combined with his association with a US terrorist seal the deal against him for me.

  • http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

    Again, I will refer you to Jim Webb, who very clearly and articulately, discussed the same sentiment Obama had, but in a more agreeable manner.

    Dude, wtf. Stop spinning. You couldn’t put Obama “into context” with a quote that he didn’t make in the speech at issue, so now you are giving us evidence of another person’s sentiments?

    The FACT that you ignore the material and argument I provided shows that you are a contemptible partisan who has no interest in real debate or honest discourse.

    You provided quotes from a different speech, and then quotes from someone not Obama. You called Rob a liar in regards to the Obama speech, stick to that speech please. All other, non-speech, arguments are specious and irrelevant.

    This word is for you. Learn it.

  • Hannitized

    Yeah Rob….its not like our CURRENT PRESIDENT who uses words like CRUSADE right before a war doesn’t raise any red flags…eh?

    Or do you think we somehow managed to put things in context? Oh never mind. It’s not like you intended to be intellectually honest….or intelligent.

  • Hannitized

    Thanks pparets. I can always count on you to recognize an argument.

    I don’t expect you to agree with either Webb or Obama. But at least now you can understand why he would say something like that, and continue to say the same thing, but in a way that shows proper context.

    And now maybe with this article I posted from Webb you can see that this is something the Democrats have been talking about for a while. The Democrats really want to appeal to Webb voters, because Virginia traditionally are more conservative and we want to build on his success and appeal.

  • HG

    Let me get this straight from you, Hannitized. Correct me if in your mind I am wrong.

    Small town people don’t vote economic issues because they don’t trust the Federal Gov’t to do anything about economic conditions. Instead, “they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    The conclusion then is that bitter small town citizens cling to these constitutional and institutional “bulwarks” of society as a way to explain inner frustrations with the lack of economic redemption on the part of governemnt?

    Could it possibly be that small town Americans just don’t trust gov’t with anything but national defense given their record of undermining these “bulwarks” and would never in a million years trust their economic conditions to the government because the government was never intended to be the economic savior of society? Could it be they accept personal responsibility for their own economic conditions?

  • Hannitized

    Yes, and liberal arrogance such as claiming that poor folks ‘cling’ to guns and religion is exactly what has created several generations of Reagan Democrats.

    What you just offered is a watered down distortion of the facts I just presented.

    The FACT that you ignore the material and argument I provided shows that you are a contemptible partisan who has no interest in real debate or honest discourse.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    What you offer as a way to rationalize your position would ordinarily be sound if it weren’t for the fact that Obama’s sentiments are a long standing Democratic understanding of the current times.

    Yes, and liberal arrogance such as claiming that poor folks ‘cling’ to guns and religion is exactly what has created several generations of Reagan Democrats.

    Long standing Democratic understanding, indeed.

  • Hannitized

    Again, I will refer you to Jim Webb, who very clearly and articulately, discussed the same sentiment Obama had, but in a more agreeable manner.

    More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The “Wal-Marting” of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

    The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of “God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag” while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

    With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.

    This is the sentiment Obama tried to convey. He speaks to us in a manner that assumes we are of the same mind set. Because to many of us, this is old news. This isn’t the first time we have heard this, nor is it something we are unaware of.

    The only people who have a problem with Obama on this are people who are dishonestly looking for a way to pick on him. Either out of intent, ignorance or inability to understand his position, they are offended.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Heh, I enjoy watching these Obama defenders like Hannitized twist themselves in knots to pretend Obama said something other than what he did.

    Screams for ‘proper context’ is a dead giveaway they are desperate.

  • Hannitized

    Suggesting that Obama’s “bitterness” remarks are mere verbal clumsiness simply won’t wash. Obama’s public appearances and speeches are too well crafted for any serious observer to fall for that clumsy spin.

    It washes, it’s static free and it will even remove the wrinkles from your clothes.

    Because you choose to ignore he previous comment, that puts the more clumsy one in proper context is not Obamas problem or mine. It’s yours.

    “People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them,” Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. “So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.” – Obama, in proper context

  • Hannitized

    None of what you say is true; I guess that’s the main reason. The US economy is not “ruined”, despite the obstruction of the Dem Congress since

    Congratulations Robert, you figured out sarcasm. Now you know why I didn’t answer 2Motel6′s false accusations.

    Aside from that, it is an attempt to change the subject.

  • Hannitized

    There you go H. You found it. Way to go!

    That doesn’t change a thing. I dedicated a year to fighting blogs on immigration. Why? Because it was a much easier battle to fight than the economic battle. I am not an economist and immigration is very important to me..VERY…but even more-so because it’s something I believe I can make a difference in fighting. It’s an argument that can be won.

    Again, this is all to basic.

  • Hannitized

    So, if small town Americans felt they could make a difference economically at the polls, they:

    1: Would vote on the economic issues and feel that it would actually make a difference (its the Economy stupid). Big time!

    2: Would still vote on the other issues, but wouldn’t be as passionate or emotional about voting on Guns, Gay Marriage or clinging to Religion, cultural identity as strongly.

  • Hannitized

    2Motel6,

    You still have not admitted that your party ruined the economy by starting a war we didnt need to be in, introduced AQ in Iraq in incredible numbers and jeapordized the stability of the ME.

    Nor have you admitted that you guys have ruined the US economy, ruined mortgage rates, raised gas prices, increased the unemployment rate, brought in more illegal aliens. Why haven’t you admitted this you race-baiting, war-monger?

  • robert108

    …but in a way that shows proper context.

    Nope. He’s just lying. If there is any “low-hanging fruit” here, Obama put it there, and now he’s getting his just desserts. (pun intended)

  • robert108

    H: You claim to want a debate, but you ignore the very real matters of Black Liberation Theology, the hate-filled Wright, and the political ideology of Saul Alinsky. Why aren’t you able to deal with those matters?

  • HG

    H. would like us to take what Obama said and ignore the implications and logical end of his condescension.

  • Hannitized

    Does it seem to anyone else like Hannitized’s entire argument here is boiling down to Bush did it too?

    Last time I checked, Bush wasn’t on the ballot in 2008.

    It seems that way to you, Rob, because you IGNORE the statements made by Obama that put the statement in proper context.

    Why do you deliberately ignore those comments? Could it be because you are dishonest? Or do you just enjoy making straw men, so you can look tough knocking them down?

    Really, Rob. Your tactics are both juvenile and irritating. You excel at it. Way to be.

  • Hannitized

    R-Gumby,

    You too choose to focus on what you think is low hanging fruit. Instead of debating or challenging my argument, you ignore it and focus on a statement that can be spun to give you an opportunity to insult instead of debate.

    This type of response is what I expect from unintelligent, dishonest partisans such as yourself.

    You don’t have the intellect or the stones to challenge my argument or read Webbs opinion piece.

  • Hannitized

    Hairy is struck by the notion that calling an arrogant person, “arrogant” is some sort of insult. Hilarious.

  • robert108

    The only reason he was taken out of context…

    He wasn’t taken out of context(I repeat); he was speaking to a group of like-minded leftie elitists like himself, and you’re right when you say: “…Obama was speaking to people who understand what he meant….”.
    All you leftie elitists have disdain and contempt for average Americans; or, to quote Obama: “typical white people”. He thought it was a closed meeting, and that his arrogant spew wouldn’t get to the public.

    Everything Obama says needs to be put in the context of Black Liberation theology, the hate-filled Wright and the political ideology of the Marxist Saul Alinsky. For all your braying about “context”, you fail to mention his real context, which is the topic of this thread. His comments are quite understandable when put in his real context, as I have described it.
    Nice try, H, but you are holding an empty sack.

  • http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

    Why are you ignoring the paragraph that I provided, that put his comments in proper context?

    Because you quoted him from a subsequent speech. Dumbass.

  • pparets

    Hannitized: You make an interesting point here. It’s at least worth thinking about.

  • Hannitized

    Are you purposefully ignoring the obvious or do you honestly not hear what is plainly said?

    Small town Americans feel (emotion) economic issues are not going to be won at the polls so they take refuge in and vote these other issues. This is clearly a statement of cause and effect and plainly suggests the relative insignificance of these other issues compared to economic ones.

    OR…….again thats “OR”….HG……he is saying that they feel they aren’t going to be able to make a difference by voting on economic issues, so instead they vote on issues that they can really change. They vote on these issues that are easy to be emotional about. It’s not as complex to fix gay marriage, as much as it is complex to fix the economy. It’s not as complex to make sure you have guns as it is to make sure you have a job. It’s easy to vote God in the pledge of allegiance, its hard to vote in a 20% pay increase.

    This is really very simple HG.

  • http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

    Well why don’t you humble me with a well thought out and honest argument Hairy?

    only few of you are capable or honest enough to deserve my arguments

  • Hannitized

    Sorry Robert, you aren’t going to change the subject at this juncture…start a new post.

  • robert108

    You are spinning like a top.

    I’m telling the truth about what Obama really believes, Obama is lying, and you are trying desperately to spin his lies. He meant exactly what he said to his rich leftie elitist buddies in SF, and they agree with him.
    No lies you can spew change that fact.

  • Hannitized

    I know you will understand when I say that I hope the GOP is better at wooing Virginians then the dems.

    If I hear you correctly, I can understand that someone would like to see a better way of appealing to them. Yes, I understand that.

    But I know I am upset about the economic situation. As much money as I make, I should be in a much better position. I am upset and I am bitter. I am bitter about the types of behavior I see from Americans who distort and misrepresent their political foes out of malice. I am bitter about the way Wal-Mart is deteriorating good jobs Americans have at grocery stores and the like. I don’t suffer personally from it, but I know my fellow Americans do, and it makes frustrated. I come to this site and others like it because sometimes it’s easier to wrestle with a person like Robert and others than think about how in the heck my financial concerns can be addressed.

    I debate with a lot of conservatives from Virginia who are servicemen, countrymen and honorable gentlemen. The fact that they were persuaded by Webb, or that they would not say negative remarks about him says a lot to me.

  • pparets

    Hannitized: I know you will understand when I say that I hope the GOP is better at wooing Virginians then the dems.

  • Hannitized

    Robert,

    You are spinning like a top. Your obfuscating the issue of this post by throwing your lame conspiracy theories about liberation theology, because I have delivered a completely logical explanation to Robs hopeful wishes to distort what Obama is saying about voting on different issues.

    You’re boring me.

  • Hannitized

    No, it’s not an argument. We’re talking about something Obama said, not something Jim Webb said. Webb has nothing to do with any of this.

    Yeah, good point Rob! The undisputed similarities between Webbs comments and Obamas are mere coincidence. They certainly don’t represent any common line of thinking in the Democratic party. The fact that Obama had his comments in line with Webbs on Friday was nothing but a desperate attempt to align himself with Webb. Yeah….uh huh.

    What you demonstrate is exactly what I expect from you; Ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and partisan hackery. You do this all in the name of tearing down your political opponent dishonestly because you don’t have the smarts to take him on honestly.

  • http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

    Again, this is why I usually just throw insults, because only few of you are capable or honest enough to deserve my arguments.

    Rob, I appologize for turning you blog into a hospital. Hannitized, I think you should see a doctor about narcissistic personality dissorder.

  • robert108

    Hairy is struck by the notion that calling an arrogant person, “arrogant” is some sort of insult.

    It wasn’t meant to be an insult; it was meant to be a correct identification, to establish your “context”, so to speak. Mission accomplished.

  • Hannitized

    Well why don’t you humble me with a well thought out and honest argument Hairy? Instead of using words like “dumbshit”…..spell out a reason why my argument is illogical and or untruthful.

    You wont, you can’t and if you tried I doubt you would in any convincing way.

  • Hannitized

    The context suggests that the issues are not fundamental but rather the voter has been “seduced” into an emotional response to these issues which would normally take a backseat to the more significant economic issues that is the source of thier real frustration.

    There is nothing in Webbs speech that says or suggests these issue are not fundamental. Instead, they are noted as emotional, because why? Because people are emotional about them. Ever seen anyone get upset about gas tax? How about No Child Left Behind? When was the last time you saw someone get emotional about those? Who gets emotional about the economy? And I am not talking about moods here….im talking about real emotions. The sort that cause people to get in fights, like immigration marches. Im talking about people who fight for their right to bear arms….where people are shot dead for this right (see Waco)(see Ted Nugent).

    You say I am taking the word out of context, but I dont think you can build an argument around that, because there is no logical way you can.

    Again, read what Obama said. This is the context:

    People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them, so people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.

    It’s really cut and dry, black and white, plain as day. I don’t know what else to tell you except, sorry, the party is over. You aint got nothin on Obama.

  • HG

    This is really very simple HG.

    Simple-minded and still condescending and offensive. The implication remains no matter how you word it — small town Americans vote these other issues and cling to these “bulwarks” out of misplaced frustration.

    It is plain as day H, sorry you can’t see the forest for the trees.

  • HG

    Would still vote on the other issues, but wouldn’t be as passionate or emotional about voting on Guns, Gay Marriage or clinging to Religion, cultural identity as strongly.

    There you go H. You found it. Way to go!

  • Hannitized

    He said X one day in a clear and concise manner, and when it proved controversial tried to spin it by saying Y the next day.

    Yeah, sorry…i meant Y.

    You’ll notice that when Obama was saying “Y” he suddenly wasn’t saying anything about being anti-immigrant. That’s the tell. He was spinning.

    But he said the same thing over and over and over. He included illegal immigration in another speech. You know this, you criticized him for it.

  • HG

    H,

    The similarity does prove a common elitist line of thinking in the dem party ranks. I personally hear the same arrogance in Webb’s comment present in Obama’s. The idea the God, guns, country, and immigration are “emotional” issues rather than foundational issues essential to freedom is one completely foriegn to small town Americans. The only “unfairness” in a global market is the high taxes and regulation Americans endure in our efforts to compete. Unneccesarily high costs of doing business in America are to much to overcome even with our enormous productivity advantage in some instances.

    As for Webb, Obama, and the rest of the democrat elitists the comments simply prove what we already knew to be the case.

  • Hannitized

    H, is this the best you can do? You said yourself these bitter voters “wouldn’t be as passionate or emotional about” those non-economic issues. This bitterness apparently brings out more passion for these non-economic issues than would otherwise exist hence, disproportional.

    HG,

    I don’t know why you think you have made some point here? Having MORE passion doesn’t mean you don’t have any. It means MORE. I used the exact words I planned.

    Have you ever had dogs? When you lost one, do you think it made you love your others that much more? I think that is usually the case. When you loose a child, do you all of a sudden make it more of an issue to cling to the children you have left, and be more involved in their lives? I think undoubtedly yes.

    If that child were to come back, somehow, would you love it any less than the others? No, you would love all your children similarly. There would be no disproportional love.

  • HG

    Are you suggesting that Ted Nugent does not represent a group of people who are emotional about these foundational issues?

    H,

    Way to take the word “emotional” out of the context in which it was used.

    The context suggests that the issues are not fundamental but rather the voter has been “seduced” into an emotional response to these issues which would normally take a backseat to the more significant economic issues that is the source of thier real frustration. It is not only wrong, but intellectually offensive to suggest such nonsense. My post is not to say that you can’t be emotional about foundational issues, but that misplaced frustration over econmomic conditions is not the root of the ardent defense of foundational issues like God, guns, immigration, etc.

  • Hannitized

    Obama said nothing wrong…because Webb said something similar?

    How is that an exoneration of Obama instead of an indictment of Webb?

    Because you claimed Obama said “X”, and I claimed he meant “Y”. I supported my evidence by quoting him saying “Y” in another speech. That subsequently put the other comment (x) in proper context. I then backed up the idea that Obama meant “Y” buy showing another respected and prominent Dem who says “Y”. This demonstrates an active thought process in our party, one of which many of us subscribe.

    Go back and read Bats comments. He claims Obamas other statements are damage control and nothing more. I proved that wrong by showing an established line of thinking over several years.

    Now, you are trying to say “X” and “Y” are the same thing in order to indict Webb. That is just more of your dishonest bullshit.

    X = People cling to Guns and Religion out of bitterness that they aren’t making money like they used to

    Y = People vote on issues like Guns and Religion because they feel they can make a difference on those issues and because they are emotional issues that have been rallied.

  • HG

    H,

    Are you purposefully ignoring the obvious or do you honestly not hear what is plainly said?

    Small town Americans feel (emotion) economic issues are not going to be won at the polls so they take refuge in and vote these other issues. This is clearly a statement of cause and effect and plainly suggests the relative insignificance of these other issues compared to economic ones. He clealy said and his explanations implies a misplaced frustration the gives rise to these other issues among small town Americans. You have to really want to read it out his statements to not see it.

  • Hannitized

    Notice that sannitized, theracebaitingpovertypimp, still refuses to admit that his Party, the Democrat Party, is the cause of lost jobs and disenfranchisement of people in America. Instead it blahblahs about semantical crap and attempts to distract people from Obamoid’s actual words

    Doh, one fell out of the cuckoo nest. Better get him/her back in before it attempts to live on its own.

  • Bat One

    People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them, so people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.

    H,

    First of all, when its said after the fact it isn’t context, as you suggest, but spin… damage control, to be blunt about it.

    Second, what Obama said in Indiana doesn’t ameliorate his earlier remarks, as you believe. Rather, it points out just how out of touch with Americans and middle American culture your boy candidate really is.

    To say that people “don’t vote on economic issues” is nonsensically stupid. Issues like taxes, economic growth, trade, inflation, are all pertinent to middle Americans… even those not directly effected by a particular policy. Think not? Ask Jimmy Carter how much a part economic issues played in his reelection bid.

    Middle American voters don’t expect “help” from Washington anyway. They expect politicians to maintain a level playing field with opportunity for all, and only in cases of dire circumstances do they expect Washington’s help. That Obama doesn’t understand this, demonstrates not just his elitist point of view, but the ultra liberal perpsective that anything and everything worthwhile must come via Washington, DC. For most Americans, the less Washington, the better.

    As for the issues Obama lists… Second Amendment, gay marriage, and the like, those things are part of the culture which Obama clearly does not understand… or stand for. They are not “refuge” issues wherein middle America hides in fear. They are issues of honor and principle on which this country was founded and no one, Barack Obama included, has yet offered a remotely salient reason to abandon them.

  • http://www.thedailyslant.com/ Hairy Polemic

    Hannitized,

    The fact that you can’t see it shows the limited intelligence you have or it shows the deliberate dishonesty to trash a perfectly valid argument that explains away a stupid one.

    I was under the impression that Rob decried Obama for his honest remarks. Meaning, Obama mispoke by saying something honest for a change, and his honest feelings happen to be highly elitist and offensive.

    Obama’s language was only “clumsy” in the sense that he fucked up and said what was actually on his mind. I don’t mind clumsy language in the Oval Office, I do mind extremist snobs.

  • HG

    H,

    I appreciate your efforts but love and frustration or bitterness are very different emotions. I’ll make it as simple as I can. If I disagree with issue Y, feel helpless to affect Y, and subsequently am frustrated and bitter over it, then carry that emotion to issues A, B, C, & D, I have misdirected and misplaced frustration and bitterness that A, B, C, & D does not warrant.

    But all this really is simply semantics and my point already made and acknowledge by yourself. You may not see the significance of the point, but then again you’re a liberal so I wouldn’t expect you’d understand. Thanks for the discussion though.

  • robert108

    But he was, and that changes everything.

    No, it doesn’t; he proved he was out of touch with real Americans, and he shared his disdain for real Americans when he thought no one was listening to him speak to his rich leftie elitist buddies. He got busted, and you’re spinning like top to deny the obvious truth.

  • 2Hotel9

    You can not deny this,”And you still refuse to address the fact that your Party has created, and continues to exacerbate the problems that Democrat Voters are bitter about. Keep spinning, racebaitingpovertypimp, its all you can do.”, and so you stamp your diminutive little foot and dance about in circles. As usual.

    HG, sannitized, the racebaitingpovertypimp, has done its standard bullshit. It started out screeching about how Obamoid’s words did not mean what they actually do. Then it hared off into some bizzaro world semantical crap, ending by spinning around and parroting back what you have said and claiming that is what it meant all along. This is what it always does. Go back and check a few threads. This is its SOP.

    And the best part? The most gooderest, bestest part? Obamoid is correct! Democrat voters are bitter, and clinging to the blind insanity that voting for another Democrat will make it all better.

    sanni? Barack Hussein Obama said it, and he meant it exactly as said. And you can not prove he didn’t.

  • 2Hotel9

    So, you are proving that Obamoid DOES believe Democrat voters are bitter, religiously unstable gun nuts who hate immigrants and the environment. See, HG? It simply spins around in circles.

    He said it, he meant it as said, and you just proved it. Here is your ass, don’t bother to come back, racebaitingpovertypimp.

  • Hannitized

    The similarity does prove a common elitist line of thinking in the dem party ranks. I personally hear the same arrogance in Webb’s comment present in Obama’s.

    HG,

    OK, you feel that way. Great. So you think Dems are arrogant and elitist. That certainly isn’t insulting, or accurate, but what ever. Somehow in your mind, you can justify judging an entire group of people, including those Americans from the small towns by the way, and it’s OK for you to do it. To you, this is not contradictory, clouded thinking, but instead a rational conclusion? I get it.

    I see you are trying to have a real discussion here, so I am staying away from the insults. But even though I find your summation insulting, I can at least argue against it.

    The idea the God, guns, country, and immigration are “emotional” issues rather than foundational issues essential to freedom is one completely foriegn to small town Americans.

    Here is something for you to think about. You can be emotional about “foundational issues”. how do you square this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tgkmO9VV8Y&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIFGEVOVVLs&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjFiHENNf9Q&feature=related

    Are you suggesting that Ted Nugent does not represent a group of people who are emotional about these foundational issues?

    The only “unfairness” in a global market is the high taxes and regulation Americans endure in our efforts to compete. Unneccesarily high costs of doing business in America are to much to overcome even with our enormous productivity advantage in some instances.

    That is how YOU feel…..great. But there are others who feel differently. You can not deny this.

    As for Webb, Obama, and the rest of the democrat elitists the comments simply prove what we already knew to be the case.

    Yes, that some people are emotional about fundamental issues.

  • 2Hotel9

    Oh, and still waiting for all that prove about the many lies Rob tells. Since you are crawling away with your tail between your legs I guess we will never receive any of that evidence.

  • Hannitized

    H,

    First of all, when its said after the fact it isn’t context, as you suggest, but spin… damage control, to be blunt about it.

    Bat,

    What you offer as a way to rationalize your position would ordinarily be sound if it weren’t for the fact that Obama’s sentiments are a long standing Democratic understanding of the current times.

    Obamas statement reflect Jim Webbs sentiments from an article he wrote in 2006. Allow me to provide evidence of this; From “American workers have a chance to be heard.”

    Mind you, Webb heard no such criticisms of being a wine sipping elitist at the time this article was written.

    The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of “God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag” while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246

    Second, what Obama said in Indiana doesn’t ameliorate his earlier remarks, as you believe. Rather, it points out just how out of touch with Americans and middle American culture your boy candidate really is.

    I disagree. This is the very reason Webb was elected in Virginia.

  • robert108

    Congratulations Robert, you figured out sarcasm.

    You said it, you got thoroughly refuted, now you claim you didn’t really mean it. Typical of you, little dude.

    The next time you attempt sarcasm, use a sarcasm tag; otherwise you’re just lying to cover your ass.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    And Hannitized, obviously, is the King of Desperation.

    He is making a full-time career of it here at SA, what with his hero Obama sticking both feet in his mouth at the same time.

  • http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

    YDT.

  • Hannitized

    Heh, I enjoy watching these Obama defenders like Hannitized twist themselves in knots to pretend Obama said something other than what he did.

    Oh brother. A typical non argument from a typical non thinker.

    I put Bush’s stupid statements in proper context because I am honest. Just as I put Obamas statements in proper context. His context is there, in the statement I provided, that you ignored. I don’t have to “twist” anything….its right there in front of your ignorant face.

    Further, what you enjoy is being a dishonest partisan. What I make a full time career out of, is responding to misinformation by providing the information propagandists are leaving out.

  • HG

    Who used the word “disproportional”?

    H, is this the best you can do? You said yourself these bitter voters “wouldn’t be as passionate or emotional about” those non-economic issues. This bitterness apparently brings out more passion for these non-economic issues than would otherwise exist hence, disproportional.

  • robert108

    The only “help” Americans need from the govt is for that govt to keep its hands out of our pockets to pay for useless and wasteful spending on social engineering pyramid schemes.
    Isn’t it an accurate description of Jeremiah Wright that he is one who hates people who aren’t like him?

  • 2Hotel9

    I am not making an argument. I am handing you your ass. Obamoid said it, he meant it. And you are bitter.

  • robert108

    Otherwise, cry all you want about my arrogance….i really could give a crap.

    Exactly the reply an arrogant fool would make.

  • Hannitized

    Ok, here you go dipshits. (apply where appropriate)

    Here is Obama saying the same thing IN 2004, that you claim he was only saying as damage control.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a88wMPAWc90&feature=related

    You are being ridiculous with this. When you see the video of Obama talking about this very same thing in 2004, in the proper context you are going to look even more stupid, if it is possible. But you will ignore and dismiss this as well. Because on top of being stupid, you will be dishonest and claim he didn’t mean what he said…..clearly…..in 2004.

  • robert108

    H: I have made several posts on the truth about Obama’s “context”; you can look them up if you want to cure your ignorance on the matter. Once again, you claim knowledge about something of which you have no knowledge. It seems to be a pattern with you.

  • Hannitized

    But “Y” isn’t what Obama actually said no matter how much you try and spin it.

    Obama said people cling to their religion, guns, hatred of people not like them because they’re bitter.

    If he didn’t mean that, why did he say it?

    See Rob. This is why I love you. I had to deliberately use X and Y in order to condense the issues to their purest form. And you still try to spin it.

    X is X, no matter how hard you spin it. Y is Y.

    Obama said X one day…because he spoke clumsily in a room full of people who knew what he was talking about. But then said X the next day to clarify what he meant. This was also stated by Webb in 2006. Showing that this is a constant line of thinking in our party.

  • HG

    Y = People vote on issues like Guns and Religion because they feel they can make a difference on those issues and because they are emotional issues that [they] have been rallied [to].

    So, if small town Americans felt they could make a difference economically at the polls, they:

    1. Wouldn’t be such frustrated and bitter defenders of these other issues?

    2. Wouldn’t be easily “seduced” into supporting these other issues at the expense of economic policies favorable to thier local industries?

  • Hannitized

    Hairy,

    You aren’t insulting with that attack. It’s a fact that I save my arguments for those who are honest enough to handle them. You aren’t one of those people.

    Unless you can demonstrate that you are intellectually honest enough, I rest my case. Otherwise, cry all you want about my arrogance….i really could give a crap.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    The FACT that you ignore the material and argument I provided shows that you are a contemptible partisan who has no interest in real debate or honest discourse.

    Well here is your real debate, Hannitized. Webb is full of crap. The Democrats are full of crap. This pseudo-Marxist claptrap about people turning to God and guns out of frustrations is just patent nonsense to anyone who actually knows the people these comments were directed at.

    Okay, now call me a liar again, Hannitized, that’s all you’ve got.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/realitybasedbob/ realitybasedbob

    IKYABWAI

  • WOOFX

    if u cn rd ths u cn gt
    a gd job & mo pa

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Obama said X one day…because he spoke clumsily in a room full of people who knew what he was talking about. But then said X the next day to clarify what he meant.

    He said X one day in a clear and concise manner, and when it proved controversial tried to spin it by saying Y the next day.

    You’ll notice that when Obama was saying “Y” he suddenly wasn’t saying anything about being anti-immigrant. That’s the tell. He was spinning.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    It’s a fact that I save my arguments for those who are honest enough to handle them.

    It’s a fact you trot this little canard out every time you don’t have an argument.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    But “Y” isn’t what Obama actually said no matter how much you try and spin it.

    Obama said people cling to their religion, guns, hatred of people not like them because they’re bitter.

    If he didn’t mean that, why did he say it?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Obama said nothing wrong…because Webb said something similar?

    How is that an exoneration of Obama instead of an indictment of Webb?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Does it seem to anyone else like Hannitized’s entire argument here is boiling down to Bush did it too?

    Last time I checked, Bush wasn’t on the ballot in 2008.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I changed Rodney’s comment above to take out the video embed which was hosing up the template.

    The SAB comments section hates video embeds, though I’m not sure why.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    No, it’s not an argument. We’re talking about something Obama said, not something Jim Webb said. Webb has nothing to do with any of this.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Obamaisms, on the other hand, seem to lend themselves to easy misapplication.

    I actually think Obama’s biggest problem is that he let the truth slip through in that comment.

    He meant what he said. He didn’t misspeak. It’s just that the truth of his feelings is politically inconvenient to him.

    Most of the time he seems like a likable guy because he projects a demeanor of blandness that allows him to be all things to all people. But he’s not. He’s a consummate liberal with a taste for radical left-wing bigotry (Wright) and a dislike for those who don’t think as he does.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development