About two weeks ago, Senator Obama was on Hardball and told the audience that he believed that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. There was little or no reaction to this comment, the "liberal" media did not cover it wall to wall for two days, and the gay community did not go ape shit.
Compare the reaction at that time with his most recent comment....hmm...we'll come back to that in a moment.
So, why don't we look at the FULL quote.
"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, the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow those communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising to me 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 to way to explain their frustrations."
Based on the reaction he has received about the comment, I think his statement is quite accurate. The Qotd reaction (and Kevin's) is quite typical of the "rock granite" stubborn refusal to look at who is actually fucking them over and continually blame the "other" which, ironically, is what Obama is describing. It's a distraction from the serious issues of the day and it puts energy into something that will ultimately solve no problems--which works out perfectly for the people (Bush, Cheney and pundit machine) who supposedly are on their side.
The people they should really be pissed off at are laughing all the way to the bank.....the people that have manipulated their bitterness and their honesty into votes.
Several here lament long and hard about how liberals are "sheeple" who follow along with whatever their side says. To a certain extent and with certain people, this is true. However, the art of getting people to become sheeple has never been more perfected than it has with the "stupid rednecks in flyover country who believe in God, guns and country." This recent flap is an excellent example.
It illustrates how the "fake outrage machine" works in this country. A bunch of people will now get angry at Obama for being "condescending" or the terribly false belief that he actually looks at people as Kevin says he does.
So, by all means, let's continue to debate, ad nauseaum, how Senator Obama is an "elitist" or a hater of America. Meanwhile, Bush Co will dance with glee as it continues to pull several layers of wool over millions of eyes.
And the fake outrage that Sen. Obama is playing to is "as to way to explain their frustrations". See, the real problem as Obama explains it to his SF audience is, these people haven't learned the correct line-up in us-vs-them.
Ooooh, "negelecting not the 'taint" -- that's gotta be the best reaction reaction I've read to Obama's gaffe. (Yeah, "gaffe" isn't the word I'm really looking for here -- can't think of the right one.)
Well, Sarah, why don't you pick up copy of Dreams of My Father? Considering that most of Obama's family are the people he supposedly looks down on, I find your statement a little hard to swallow.
"Well, Sarah, why don't you pick up copy of Dreams of My Father? Considering that most of Obama's family are the people he supposedly looks down on, I find your statement a little hard to swallow."
Considering how quick he was to throw his grandmother under the bus, I wouldn't doubt that he does indeed look down on the rest of his family that fits that stereotype.
If you want to see retard rednecks who cling to their guns and really strange beliefs I'd suggest Obama visit the hood instead of living in his mansion. But then again he believes that his minister is preaching the word of God. When I watch the Rev Wright I always get reminded of the sermon on the mount, don't you?
Just another Leftwing elitist idiot-but I forgot he's a bigot who'd throw his grandmother under the bus for fun. What a chump.
I'm not going to read Obama's book. It's abundantly clear to me who and what he is, regardless of his background.
LabRat put it aptly in the newer post: Obama doesn't understand why we want our religion, guns, etc., because he thinks government should be fulfilling those needs.
But, to be fair, I agree with Kevin that the other candidates look at us much the same way. As far as I'm concerned, the whole point of this is, he and his followers can stop pretending.
"It's abundantly clear to me who and what he is, regardless of his background. "
Ah, well...at least I tried. File this in your memory, Sarah,...if Obama becomes president I predict there will be a moment when you understand the kind of man he truly is as opposed to the comfortable caricature you need him to be.
What he said and where he said it is no surprise to me. It is exactly the mindset of a "typical" Bay-Aryan Elite, as characterized by most of the Professoriat at Stanford and Berkeley, where the degrading and grinding "rurality" of the Midwest (occasionally charming if depicted in the museum-collected photography of Weston, Lange, and Adams) begins over the hills in Livermore - a world far from ivory towers they have built along a faulted coast...
Oh the horror of being forced to attend private school in Hawaii, a land not of palm trees and gentle breezes but of eternal torment - if you're blond anyhow it's an interesting place to grow up and discover reverse racism.
I've never said he's perfect. In fact, I think he will make some mistakes, if elected, and will do some things with which I will not agree.
That being said, however, I think if he does even a quarter of what he has the potential to do, he will be our finest president in 45 years....which won't be hard to do :)
...if Obama becomes president I predict there will be a moment when you understand the kind of man he truly is as opposed to the comfortable caricature you need him to be.
I predict with equal sincerity that, should Obama become president, there will be a moment when I will be looking into how feasible it is to move to Greenland.
You’re right in that people in America have become bitter about being constantly surrounded by those unlike them.
You’re wrong in thinking that it’s about skin color, or religion, or gun ownership, or what language you are most comfortable speaking, or what part of the world your mom and dad were born in. It’s not about any of that, and yet it is about “I would feel more comfortable about them if they were more like me.”
We would feel more comfortable if we felt we were surrounded by people who, like us, grew up believing that all you needed to do well in America was good judgement and a willingness to work. Yes, I know that was never true, that’s not the point. Because we believed it was true, and that it should always become more true, when we saw places where it was unjust *individual Americans* tended to band together to do something about it. True, we didn’t accomplish as much on as large a scale. But where we accomplished anything, we had the goal firmly in mind. It was about opening up that dream for those who only wanted to work hard and see if their judgement and skill would bring them the life they wanted. It’s called freedom, liberty, mastery of your own destiny.
Instead, we are finding ourselves surrounded by those who belittle liberty as something we have too much of, something we should be willing to sacrifice to gain equality. Only ‘equality’ doesn’t mean everyone has the same chance to create the life they want, using the same rules. No, ‘equality’ is defined in modern America as ‘sameness of results imposed from above’.
And you and those who follow you don’t understand why that is a source of concern to us. We still search for the American dream, yes. But that doesn’t mean the plumber, the CEO, the lawyer and the car salesman all want to be the same guy. The definition of ‘the good life’ is different for each of us, the only common denominator is that none of us can get it unless we are allowed to *create it ourselves*, to our own personal specifications. A preset, modular template Good Life(tm) (Millions of combinations possible with our modular ‘MyGoodLife(tm) System’) doesn’t appeal to us, it scares us. Millions of combinations don’t comfort us when applied to hundreds of millions of people. For most of us that wouldn’t be ‘the good life’, even among those who think it would before they experience the result. For most of us that would be a living hell, forced into a mold designed to fit a mythical average that doesn’t exist in the real world.
It doesn’t bother me that your middle name is Hussein. I only call you that to illustrate how idiotic it is for it to be considered politically incorrect and insensitive to call someone by THEIR OWN NAME. It doesn’t bother me that you are black, it bothers me that apparently Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Clarence Thomas are “typical white people” in your world. It doesn’t bother me that you were born in another country, nor do I care which one. It bothers me that you apparently have so little regard for those who consider America something to be proud of, even when she fails to live up to her dreams.
No sir, Sen. Hussein, none of *WHAT* you are bothers me. It’s WHO you are. You are a former editor of Harvard Law Review who is evidently utterly ignorant of the concept of liberty. And judging by your taste in friends and companions, it seems unlikely that anyone who does understand that concept, much less someone who would fight for it, would find a place anywhere in the power structure you are trying to create. We are “outside your comfort zone.”
That's only because you place yourself there, not through any fault of his.
I realize that you've put your hopes, faith, and eternal soul into Obama's hands.
But you really, really, cannot see how the past 3 weeks of "revelations" are problematic to people?
Even to try and "see it their way" and "heal divisions?"
...
Obama's got a longdamnwaytogo to be a "uniter", then.
"who is evidently utterly ignorant of the concept of liberty."
is patently false.
You're actually right here, Mark.
For once.
He's aware of it, and also fully cognizant of how much liberty would be lost under his pet plans. As evidenced by his comments over the last 15 or so years (Especially embracing and assisting the Joyce Foundation and their gun-prohibitionist tactics.)
But the original poster's point wasn't that he didn't really know what liberty was, he just didn't respect it. So your semantics aside, the OP you quote has a point that stands. (Until you refute it and not merely deny it.)
I took an acid-pill and I'm not bitter anymore, it's easy - and "Liberty" is a fungible and elastic concept especially to an editor of the Harvard Law Review...
"But you really, really, cannot see how the past 3 weeks of "revelations" are problematic to people?"
What I see, Unix, is there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious fact that people will vote against their interests if they are falsely frightened into believing that someone is going to take away their guns, let gays and illegals run rampant, and threaten their religion.
That being said, Obama is a human being. He is going to make mistakes. Chances are, he is going to make a bigger one than this one. To me, it has always been HOW he learns from it.
is there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious fact that people will vote against their interests if they are falsely frightened into believing that someone is going to take away their guns, let gays and illegals run rampant, and threaten their religion.
Again (and again, and again, and again) we run up against your wall of illogic.
Mark, the problem isn't that it's "falsely frightened", it's that there's damn good evidence that that's the gameplan. But when it's pointed out to you, you point at (or make up) a denial. Words. "Oh, we'll never do that."
Right. And Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia had a nonaggression pact. (The reason the Germans smashed so far so fast? They hit the Russians by surprise - and hit the Soviet main divisions, with the best troops and equipment, which were staging for the attack on the Germans.)
Words are words, Mark. Something you just don't understand. If you like a messenger, you'll believe anything that messenger says, no matter how inane, stupid, or idiotic. And you'll ignore blatant truth, easily verified facts from any messenger who doesn't meet with your full approval.
That's not, by the way, "Critical thinking", no matter how much you call it that.
By the same token, Bush is a bipartisan uniter - he's said that's his goal, and that what he's going to do. So either admit that he is, or stop using that method to defend Obama from his record, past, and decisions, then tell us that we're fools! fools! for distrusting him with our health, life, and especially, our liberty.
Obama's comments are enlightening, because they show that you've misread the man. This is a man who used to be a board member of the Joyce Foundation, Mark. The charitable non-profit set up for benefiting the Great Lakes Region, but has turned into Anti-Gun, Inc. They're supporting all the other "grassroots" and "academic studies". All. Of. Them. Joyce.
The man was a board member, Mark. While Joyce funded false studies, multiple groups to ban guns and restrict gun owners. Encouraged the Democratic party to keep restricting guns and gun owners, slandering us mercilessly, and predicting blood in the streets.
Even you should have a hard time waving that away, especially when he's speaking "off the cuff" and not "publicly", he allows that you know what? He's against guns, Bibles, and anything else that people who don't support him "cling to".
Even you.
Even you should not be able to wave away his admissions (and apparent confusion that anybody would consider that insulting) that in fact, it's not a "false fear", instead, his attempts to ingratiate himself into the gun owners is what's false. And those fears are very real. Not false.
Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the N.R.A., said, “There has been a brick-by-brick restoration of the Second Amendment” over the past 10 years or so at the state level, and he added that his organization continued to build upon it. “It is one of the most uncovered, fundamental sea changes in American politics,” Mr. LaPierre said.
Nope, but I think that might be a bit advanced for this... demonstrated level of discussion.
It's Mark trying to shift the discussion elsewhere, since he's pretty much caught by the short and curly's on this one. He's been telling us that Obama's not a gun-grabber, doesn't look down on us, and, well, whoops.
As I once compared him to Vizzini, he again fufills that role:
Vizzini: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind the man in black] What in the world can that be?
Man in black: [turning around, while Vizzini switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [Vizzini laughs]
Man in black: What's so funny?
Vizzini: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets drink, me from my glass and you from yours.
The question is not what has been happening elsewhere, but wether your assertion that nefarious others are "falsely frightening 'us'" (you know, the typical clingy bible-thumping yokels) with.
Your diversion didn't work. Was Obama's comments proof that you were wrong about the "false fright", or not?
"He's been telling us that Obama's not a gun-grabber, doesn't look down on us"
He's not and he doesn't. I can keep repeating myself if you like and offer you evidence that you will ignore or discount...what's the point? Your mind is made up...any likelihood it will change?
"Was Obama's comments proof that you were wrong about the "false fright", or not?"
No. They confirm it. Are you going to deal with the fact that Republicans do this on a daily basis or not?
"He's been telling us that Obama's not a gun-grabber, doesn't look down on us"
He's not and he doesn't. I can keep repeating myself if you like and offer you evidence that you will ignore or discount...what's the point? Your mind is made up...any likelihood it will change?
He's not, and he doesn't...
Yes, you'll keep repeating yourself - but you've yet to offer any "evidence" at all - yet - to support your assertions and outright slanders.
Likelihood? Oh, to be quite honest, it's very low. On this issue. Because I've seen the proof, the evidence, and it's against you all the way. I saw it back in 2004 when Obama was groomed for the VP slot, and looked up his record. You read his books, and didn't know of his record, or how he really felt. Until now, of course. The evidence supported my conclusions then, and all that the recent issues have come up have been to demonstrate that my analysis ended up being more correct than yours.
All you do, and all you've done is parrot back that "No! No! He Doesn't! See, here he SAID [something]."
But Mark, the problem with that is also that we here are a group that remembers what we were told. And what's happened. How "Subject only to the police power" means gun bans for us here - not for the powerful and connected, but for the middle class. The workers. The common people that Obama is supposed to champion. SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois Constitution.)
Amazing how that "subject only to the police power" means that you and I can't protect ourselves, our families, our livelihoods in Obama's home town.
That's an for example. Just the one.
I've given you other evidence that you've ignored and avoided answering. Many times. And this very subject came up because he said something - and is reportedly stunned that the slack-jawed yokels are offended at being called slack-jawed yokels! - and again, his real opinion comes through.
Where's your counter to his board membership on the Joyce Foundation, Mark?
Damn straight you're not changing my mind without proof. Show me evidence that his gunbanning has changed. What's the changes of that changing without proof? Well, shit, that would be pretty damn dumb if I was willing to change my mind without evidence. (Who the messenger is doesn't, by itself, work with me.)
Ok, you've claimed you've got it.
So, prove it. Let's see your evidence that Obama has changed his mind, and is no longer looking to ban guns.
"Was Obama's comments proof that you were wrong about the "false fright", or not?"
No. They confirm it. Are you going to deal with the fact that Republicans do this on a daily basis or not?
They.. confirm.. it.
Mark, we're not speaking the same language here.
Obama demonstrated a total lack of understanding, "nuance", and sympathy for the average voter he's courting, and you're claiming he's representing.
It reinforced the idea that he, in fact, would take steps to outlaw guns, at the very least, and he wouldn't be friendly to our civil rights.
How did that possibly turn into that it "reinforced" your claim that it was a "false fear?"
Are you going to deal with the fact that Republicans do this on a daily basis or not?
No. For three reasons.
1) You're trying to Vizzini us away from your hole you're digging.
2) It doesn't matter, we're discussing Obama, not what any other candidate/party might do or not.
3) Even if they did, it would be irrelevant, since his statements and reaction prove it wasn't unfounded fear, but quite well founded fear! So if the Republicans said that, as a "fear" appeal, they were right!.
4) My snazzy new uniform, oh, dammit, wrong skit.
But mainly because it doesn't matter. It's just your broad slanders without proof, just to try and change the topic away from something, since the evidence is massively and plainly against you.
(You did this with S-CHIP repeatedly, as the implications and ramifications became more and more obvious. Nor did I see you comment or give kudos to Bush when he signed the re-authorization as he said he would. So the Frosts are now covered. And living a life with more luxuries than mine. But your apology for your vitriol to Bush can wait. Stick to this subject.)
"but you've yet to offer any "evidence" at all - yet - to support your assertions and outright slanders."
Why should I, Unix, give me a good reason. You won't believe any sources I have to offer. Moreover, you won't look at this from a realistic perspective. How exactly is going to "grab" your guns?
Because you said you could, and I've said you're not able to.
I'm quite positive you can't.
If you want to prove me wrong, you'd have to. Because the entire point of this argument is evidence-based. As with all your other arguments, you're very low (usually nonexistant) on proof.
You said and offer you evidence - so offer it. If you have it. The fact you're not touching it certainly seems like you know that what you're saying is not right.
Which would indicate that you're not, in fact, discoursing in good faith.
You won't believe any sources I have to offer.
If they're that bad, you're right, I won't.
Or, more likely, if you've realised after about [checks some timestamps] a couple hours of Googling, that there's none, and you're too intellectually dishonest to admit that, and to admit that your repeated claims are wrong, and your slanders against others erroneous.
Or, you know, you can give me some proof otherwise.
If you don't - you can certainly take Fermat's gambit.
But he had the decency to at least die and not keep showing back up saying that he could prove it, but wouldn't.
the obvious fact that people will vote against their interests if they are falsely frightened into believing that someone is going to take away their guns, let gays and illegals run rampant, and threaten their religion
LMAO. This is the mindset of the liberal. Those people don't REALLY KNOW "their interests" and are so easily fooled into voting 'badly'.
Now, poor liberal, if this were true, then democracy is screwed - because the people will ALWAYS be fooled by someone. I know you believe that in your noble, enlightened mind that they only have to follow your example; but the kicker is you are no different from them! You too are just another sucker - fooled by someone more clever than you.
The liberal has the same sense of pity for the unenlightened that an evangelical has for someone who hasn't heard the word. Funny how that works.
He voted against a law which protects people who have to shoot someone in self defense within their own home from officious prosecution.
He thinks D.C.'s gun ban is constitutional.
Or how 'bout quotes from his speech in this article?
"There was a discussion today about a law that has just passed in California that allows micro-tracing of bullets that have been discharged in a crime so that they can immediately be traced," he said. "This is something that California has passed over the strong objections of the NRA…That's the kind of common sense gun law that gun owners as well as victims of gun violence can get behind."
or this…
"I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws…The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C.," he said. "I think the notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution."
In other words, he is comfortable with those cities' total bans!
BTW… These comments were made only one month ago.
His past actions indicate a highly committed gun grabber. His recent comments indicate no change in that attitude.
From all indications, he really does want to take away all our guns. Therefore, the fear that he wants to is completely justified, NOT false!
This Markadelphia fellow's comments are quite boring. The dodging, weaving, accusing, and misdirection receive reasoned responses based on evidence of Senator Obama's words and actions.
Yet Markadelphia prattles on. Frankly, I would have a bit of respect for him if he just said, "Heh, guys. I'm for Obama and there is not a thing you can say to change my mind."
I think he's taken his ball and gone home with it.
That'll show US!
:lol:
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/04/quote-of-day_12.html (43 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
What, Mark has not made an appearance to explain that everyone, everywhere misunderstood Obama's words because of our preconceived notions?
These pics of Obama visiting Billionaire's Row in SF underscore the sentiments of the post.
About two weeks ago, Senator Obama was on Hardball and told the audience that he believed that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. There was little or no reaction to this comment, the "liberal" media did not cover it wall to wall for two days, and the gay community did not go ape shit.
Compare the reaction at that time with his most recent comment....hmm...we'll come back to that in a moment.
So, why don't we look at the FULL quote.
"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, the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow those communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising to me 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 to way to explain their frustrations."
Based on the reaction he has received about the comment, I think his statement is quite accurate. The Qotd reaction (and Kevin's) is quite typical of the "rock granite" stubborn refusal to look at who is actually fucking them over and continually blame the "other" which, ironically, is what Obama is describing. It's a distraction from the serious issues of the day and it puts energy into something that will ultimately solve no problems--which works out perfectly for the people (Bush, Cheney and pundit machine) who supposedly are on their side.
The people they should really be pissed off at are laughing all the way to the bank.....the people that have manipulated their bitterness and their honesty into votes.
Several here lament long and hard about how liberals are "sheeple" who follow along with whatever their side says. To a certain extent and with certain people, this is true. However, the art of getting people to become sheeple has never been more perfected than it has with the "stupid rednecks in flyover country who believe in God, guns and country." This recent flap is an excellent example.
It illustrates how the "fake outrage machine" works in this country. A bunch of people will now get angry at Obama for being "condescending" or the terribly false belief that he actually looks at people as Kevin says he does.
So, by all means, let's continue to debate, ad nauseaum, how Senator Obama is an "elitist" or a hater of America. Meanwhile, Bush Co will dance with glee as it continues to pull several layers of wool over millions of eyes.
And the fake outrage that Sen. Obama is playing to is "as to way to explain their frustrations". See, the real problem as Obama explains it to his SF audience is, these people haven't learned the correct line-up in us-vs-them.
See how that works Mark? No, of course you don't.
Ooooh, "negelecting not the 'taint" -- that's gotta be the best reaction reaction I've read to Obama's gaffe. (Yeah, "gaffe" isn't the word I'm really looking for here -- can't think of the right one.)
...or the terribly obvious belief that he actually looks at people as he says he does.
Well, Sarah, why don't you pick up copy of Dreams of My Father? Considering that most of Obama's family are the people he supposedly looks down on, I find your statement a little hard to swallow.
"Well, Sarah, why don't you pick up copy of Dreams of My Father? Considering that most of Obama's family are the people he supposedly looks down on, I find your statement a little hard to swallow."
Considering how quick he was to throw his grandmother under the bus, I wouldn't doubt that he does indeed look down on the rest of his family that fits that stereotype.
If you want to see retard rednecks who cling to their guns and really strange beliefs I'd suggest Obama visit the hood instead of living in his mansion. But then again he believes that his minister is preaching the word of God. When I watch the Rev Wright I always get reminded of the sermon on the mount, don't you?
Just another Leftwing elitist idiot-but I forgot he's a bigot who'd throw his grandmother under the bus for fun. What a chump.
Mark,
I'm not going to read Obama's book. It's abundantly clear to me who and what he is, regardless of his background.
LabRat put it aptly in the newer post: Obama doesn't understand why we want our religion, guns, etc., because he thinks government should be fulfilling those needs.
But, to be fair, I agree with Kevin that the other candidates look at us much the same way. As far as I'm concerned, the whole point of this is, he and his followers can stop pretending.
"It's abundantly clear to me who and what he is, regardless of his background. "
Ah, well...at least I tried. File this in your memory, Sarah,...if Obama becomes president I predict there will be a moment when you understand the kind of man he truly is as opposed to the comfortable caricature you need him to be.
...as opposed to the comfortable caricature you need him to be.
Wow. Talk about projection!
Damn. There's hot tea on my keyboard again. Does Dell sell spit-shields?
What he said and where he said it is no surprise to me. It is exactly the mindset of a "typical" Bay-Aryan Elite, as characterized by most of the Professoriat at Stanford and Berkeley, where the degrading and grinding "rurality" of the Midwest (occasionally charming if depicted in the museum-collected photography of Weston, Lange, and Adams) begins over the hills in Livermore - a world far from ivory towers they have built along a faulted coast...
Oh the horror of being forced to attend private school in Hawaii, a land not of palm trees and gentle breezes but of eternal torment - if you're blond anyhow it's an interesting place to grow up and discover reverse racism.
"Wow. Talk about projection!"
I've never said he's perfect. In fact, I think he will make some mistakes, if elected, and will do some things with which I will not agree.
That being said, however, I think if he does even a quarter of what he has the potential to do, he will be our finest president in 45 years....which won't be hard to do :)
Mark,
...if Obama becomes president I predict there will be a moment when you understand the kind of man he truly is as opposed to the comfortable caricature you need him to be.
I predict with equal sincerity that, should Obama become president, there will be a moment when I will be looking into how feasible it is to move to Greenland.
Well, I hear it is nice there.
It'll be even nicer when Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming brings the Earth's temperature up about 7ºC.
Where it's been before.
You’re both right and wrong, Sen. Hussein.
You’re right in that people in America have become bitter about being constantly surrounded by those unlike them.
You’re wrong in thinking that it’s about skin color, or religion, or gun ownership, or what language you are most comfortable speaking, or what part of the world your mom and dad were born in. It’s not about any of that, and yet it is about “I would feel more comfortable about them if they were more like me.”
We would feel more comfortable if we felt we were surrounded by people who, like us, grew up believing that all you needed to do well in America was good judgement and a willingness to work. Yes, I know that was never true, that’s not the point. Because we believed it was true, and that it should always become more true, when we saw places where it was unjust *individual Americans* tended to band together to do something about it. True, we didn’t accomplish as much on as large a scale. But where we accomplished anything, we had the goal firmly in mind. It was about opening up that dream for those who only wanted to work hard and see if their judgement and skill would bring them the life they wanted. It’s called freedom, liberty, mastery of your own destiny.
Instead, we are finding ourselves surrounded by those who belittle liberty as something we have too much of, something we should be willing to sacrifice to gain equality. Only ‘equality’ doesn’t mean everyone has the same chance to create the life they want, using the same rules. No, ‘equality’ is defined in modern America as ‘sameness of results imposed from above’.
And you and those who follow you don’t understand why that is a source of concern to us. We still search for the American dream, yes. But that doesn’t mean the plumber, the CEO, the lawyer and the car salesman all want to be the same guy. The definition of ‘the good life’ is different for each of us, the only common denominator is that none of us can get it unless we are allowed to *create it ourselves*, to our own personal specifications. A preset, modular template Good Life(tm) (Millions of combinations possible with our modular ‘MyGoodLife(tm) System’) doesn’t appeal to us, it scares us. Millions of combinations don’t comfort us when applied to hundreds of millions of people. For most of us that wouldn’t be ‘the good life’, even among those who think it would before they experience the result. For most of us that would be a living hell, forced into a mold designed to fit a mythical average that doesn’t exist in the real world.
It doesn’t bother me that your middle name is Hussein. I only call you that to illustrate how idiotic it is for it to be considered politically incorrect and insensitive to call someone by THEIR OWN NAME. It doesn’t bother me that you are black, it bothers me that apparently Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Clarence Thomas are “typical white people” in your world. It doesn’t bother me that you were born in another country, nor do I care which one. It bothers me that you apparently have so little regard for those who consider America something to be proud of, even when she fails to live up to her dreams.
No sir, Sen. Hussein, none of *WHAT* you are bothers me. It’s WHO you are. You are a former editor of Harvard Law Review who is evidently utterly ignorant of the concept of liberty. And judging by your taste in friends and companions, it seems unlikely that anyone who does understand that concept, much less someone who would fight for it, would find a place anywhere in the power structure you are trying to create. We are “outside your comfort zone.”
"It'll be even nicer when Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming brings the Earth's temperature up about 7ºC."
I hear the Russians just released a report saying that the oceans were cooling so it might not be all that balmy. Remember, folks, 90 percent!
"We are “outside your comfort zone.”"
That's only because you place yourself there, not through any fault of his. And this...
"who is evidently utterly ignorant of the concept of liberty."
is patently false.
That's only because you place yourself there, not through any fault of his.
I realize that you've put your hopes, faith, and eternal soul into Obama's hands.
But you really, really, cannot see how the past 3 weeks of "revelations" are problematic to people?
Even to try and "see it their way" and "heal divisions?"
...
Obama's got a longdamnwaytogo to be a "uniter", then.
"who is evidently utterly ignorant of the concept of liberty."
is patently false.
You're actually right here, Mark.
For once.
He's aware of it, and also fully cognizant of how much liberty would be lost under his pet plans. As evidenced by his comments over the last 15 or so years (Especially embracing and assisting the Joyce Foundation and their gun-prohibitionist tactics.)
But the original poster's point wasn't that he didn't really know what liberty was, he just didn't respect it. So your semantics aside, the OP you quote has a point that stands. (Until you refute it and not merely deny it.)
I took an acid-pill and I'm not bitter anymore, it's easy - and "Liberty" is a fungible and elastic concept especially to an editor of the Harvard Law Review...
Well written GrumpyOldFart!
"But you really, really, cannot see how the past 3 weeks of "revelations" are problematic to people?"
What I see, Unix, is there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious fact that people will vote against their interests if they are falsely frightened into believing that someone is going to take away their guns, let gays and illegals run rampant, and threaten their religion.
That being said, Obama is a human being. He is going to make mistakes. Chances are, he is going to make a bigger one than this one. To me, it has always been HOW he learns from it.
is there is nothing wrong with stating the obvious fact that people will vote against their interests if they are falsely frightened into believing that someone is going to take away their guns, let gays and illegals run rampant, and threaten their religion.
Again (and again, and again, and again) we run up against your wall of illogic.
Mark, the problem isn't that it's "falsely frightened", it's that there's damn good evidence that that's the gameplan. But when it's pointed out to you, you point at (or make up) a denial. Words. "Oh, we'll never do that."
Right. And Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia had a nonaggression pact. (The reason the Germans smashed so far so fast? They hit the Russians by surprise - and hit the Soviet main divisions, with the best troops and equipment, which were staging for the attack on the Germans.)
Words are words, Mark. Something you just don't understand. If you like a messenger, you'll believe anything that messenger says, no matter how inane, stupid, or idiotic. And you'll ignore blatant truth, easily verified facts from any messenger who doesn't meet with your full approval.
That's not, by the way, "Critical thinking", no matter how much you call it that.
By the same token, Bush is a bipartisan uniter - he's said that's his goal, and that what he's going to do. So either admit that he is, or stop using that method to defend Obama from his record, past, and decisions, then tell us that we're fools! fools! for distrusting him with our health, life, and especially, our liberty.
Obama's comments are enlightening, because they show that you've misread the man. This is a man who used to be a board member of the Joyce Foundation, Mark. The charitable non-profit set up for benefiting the Great Lakes Region, but has turned into Anti-Gun, Inc. They're supporting all the other "grassroots" and "academic studies". All. Of. Them. Joyce.
The man was a board member, Mark. While Joyce funded false studies, multiple groups to ban guns and restrict gun owners. Encouraged the Democratic party to keep restricting guns and gun owners, slandering us mercilessly, and predicting blood in the streets.
Even you should have a hard time waving that away, especially when he's speaking "off the cuff" and not "publicly", he allows that you know what? He's against guns, Bibles, and anything else that people who don't support him "cling to".
Even you.
Even you should not be able to wave away his admissions (and apparent confusion that anybody would consider that insulting) that in fact, it's not a "false fear", instead, his attempts to ingratiate himself into the gun owners is what's false. And those fears are very real. Not false.
Even you.
Or Mark, to be even shorter and to the point (What was all that thudding? People fainting?):
The comments and revelations over the past three weeks, Mark?
They demonstrate conclusively that our concerns were demonstrably not false.
"it's that there's damn good evidence that that's the gameplan"
Well, it's my understanding that 2nd Amendment rights have been steadily improving over the last 10 years.
Do you agree or disagree?
Golly.
Unix, have you seen any change during the past ten years in what rights the Second Amendment guarantees?
THUD indeed.
DJ, quoting from the Times today...
Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the N.R.A., said, “There has been a brick-by-brick restoration of the Second Amendment” over the past 10 years or so at the state level, and he added that his organization continued to build upon it. “It is one of the most uncovered, fundamental sea changes in American politics,” Mr. LaPierre said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/us/15guns.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Is he wrong?
DJ:
Nope, but I think that might be a bit advanced for this... demonstrated level of discussion.
It's Mark trying to shift the discussion elsewhere, since he's pretty much caught by the short and curly's on this one. He's been telling us that Obama's not a gun-grabber, doesn't look down on us, and, well, whoops.
As I once compared him to Vizzini, he again fufills that role:
Vizzini: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind the man in black] What in the world can that be?
Man in black: [turning around, while Vizzini switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
Vizzini: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [Vizzini laughs]
Man in black: What's so funny?
Vizzini: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets drink, me from my glass and you from yours.
But, Mark:
The question is not what has been happening elsewhere, but wether your assertion that nefarious others are "falsely frightening 'us'" (you know, the typical clingy bible-thumping yokels) with.
Your diversion didn't work. Was Obama's comments proof that you were wrong about the "false fright", or not?
"He's been telling us that Obama's not a gun-grabber, doesn't look down on us"
He's not and he doesn't. I can keep repeating myself if you like and offer you evidence that you will ignore or discount...what's the point? Your mind is made up...any likelihood it will change?
"Was Obama's comments proof that you were wrong about the "false fright", or not?"
No. They confirm it. Are you going to deal with the fact that Republicans do this on a daily basis or not?
"Nope, but I think that might be a bit advanced for this... demonstrated level of discussion."
Yup. You understand it. He doesn't. It's really, really simple English, isn't it?
"He's been telling us that Obama's not a gun-grabber, doesn't look down on us"
He's not and he doesn't. I can keep repeating myself if you like and offer you evidence that you will ignore or discount...what's the point? Your mind is made up...any likelihood it will change?
He's not, and he doesn't...
Yes, you'll keep repeating yourself - but you've yet to offer any "evidence" at all - yet - to support your assertions and outright slanders.
Likelihood? Oh, to be quite honest, it's very low. On this issue. Because I've seen the proof, the evidence, and it's against you all the way. I saw it back in 2004 when Obama was groomed for the VP slot, and looked up his record. You read his books, and didn't know of his record, or how he really felt. Until now, of course. The evidence supported my conclusions then, and all that the recent issues have come up have been to demonstrate that my analysis ended up being more correct than yours.
All you do, and all you've done is parrot back that "No! No! He Doesn't! See, here he SAID [something]."
But Mark, the problem with that is also that we here are a group that remembers what we were told. And what's happened. How "Subject only to the police power" means gun bans for us here - not for the powerful and connected, but for the middle class. The workers. The common people that Obama is supposed to champion.
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois Constitution.)
Amazing how that "subject only to the police power" means that you and I can't protect ourselves, our families, our livelihoods in Obama's home town.
That's an for example. Just the one.
I've given you other evidence that you've ignored and avoided answering. Many times. And this very subject came up because he said something - and is reportedly stunned that the slack-jawed yokels are offended at being called slack-jawed yokels! - and again, his real opinion comes through.
Where's your counter to his board membership on the Joyce Foundation, Mark?
Damn straight you're not changing my mind without proof. Show me evidence that his gunbanning has changed. What's the changes of that changing without proof? Well, shit, that would be pretty damn dumb if I was willing to change my mind without evidence. (Who the messenger is doesn't, by itself, work with me.)
Ok, you've claimed you've got it.
So, prove it. Let's see your evidence that Obama has changed his mind, and is no longer looking to ban guns.
His mere words won't count.
"Was Obama's comments proof that you were wrong about the "false fright", or not?"
No. They confirm it. Are you going to deal with the fact that Republicans do this on a daily basis or not?
They.. confirm.. it.
Mark, we're not speaking the same language here.
Obama demonstrated a total lack of understanding, "nuance", and sympathy for the average voter he's courting, and you're claiming he's representing.
It reinforced the idea that he, in fact, would take steps to outlaw guns, at the very least, and he wouldn't be friendly to our civil rights.
How did that possibly turn into that it "reinforced" your claim that it was a "false fear?"
Are you going to deal with the fact that Republicans do this on a daily basis or not?
No. For three reasons.
1) You're trying to Vizzini us away from your hole you're digging.
2) It doesn't matter, we're discussing Obama, not what any other candidate/party might do or not.
3) Even if they did, it would be irrelevant, since his statements and reaction prove it wasn't unfounded fear, but quite well founded fear! So if the Republicans said that, as a "fear" appeal, they were right!.
4) My snazzy new uniform, oh, dammit, wrong skit.
But mainly because it doesn't matter. It's just your broad slanders without proof, just to try and change the topic away from something, since the evidence is massively and plainly against you.
(You did this with S-CHIP repeatedly, as the implications and ramifications became more and more obvious. Nor did I see you comment or give kudos to Bush when he signed the re-authorization as he said he would. So the Frosts are now covered. And living a life with more luxuries than mine. But your apology for your vitriol to Bush can wait. Stick to this subject.)
"but you've yet to offer any "evidence" at all - yet - to support your assertions and outright slanders."
Why should I, Unix, give me a good reason. You won't believe any sources I have to offer. Moreover, you won't look at this from a realistic perspective. How exactly is going to "grab" your guns?
Why should I, Unix, give me a good reason.
Because you said you could, and I've said you're not able to.
I'm quite positive you can't.
If you want to prove me wrong, you'd have to. Because the entire point of this argument is evidence-based. As with all your other arguments, you're very low (usually nonexistant) on proof.
You said and offer you evidence - so offer it. If you have it. The fact you're not touching it certainly seems like you know that what you're saying is not right.
Which would indicate that you're not, in fact, discoursing in good faith.
You won't believe any sources I have to offer.
If they're that bad, you're right, I won't.
Or, more likely, if you've realised after about [checks some timestamps] a couple hours of Googling, that there's none, and you're too intellectually dishonest to admit that, and to admit that your repeated claims are wrong, and your slanders against others erroneous.
Or, you know, you can give me some proof otherwise.
If you don't - you can certainly take Fermat's gambit.
But he had the decency to at least die and not keep showing back up saying that he could prove it, but wouldn't.
the obvious fact that people will vote against their interests if they are falsely frightened into believing that someone is going to take away their guns, let gays and illegals run rampant, and threaten their religion
LMAO. This is the mindset of the liberal. Those people don't REALLY KNOW "their interests" and are so easily fooled into voting 'badly'.
Now, poor liberal, if this were true, then democracy is screwed - because the people will ALWAYS be fooled by someone. I know you believe that in your noble, enlightened mind that they only have to follow your example; but the kicker is you are no different from them! You too are just another sucker - fooled by someone more clever than you.
The liberal has the same sense of pity for the unenlightened that an evangelical has for someone who hasn't heard the word. Funny how that works.
Actions speak louder than words.
Here are Obama's actions on gun control:
GOA gives Obama an F on gun control for the current Congress. GOA's definition of an F rating is "Anti-Gun Voter: a philosophically committed anti-gunner." The NRA also rates him as an F.
Here is an article from GOA on Barak Obama's anti-gun history.
He voted against a law which protects people who have to shoot someone in self defense within their own home from officious prosecution.
He thinks D.C.'s gun ban is constitutional.
Or how 'bout quotes from his speech in this article?
"There was a discussion today about a law that has just passed in California that allows micro-tracing of bullets that have been discharged in a crime so that they can immediately be traced," he said. "This is something that California has passed over the strong objections of the NRA…That's the kind of common sense gun law that gun owners as well as victims of gun violence can get behind."
or this…
"I think that local jurisdictions have the capacity to institute their own gun laws…The City of Chicago has gun laws, as does Washington, D.C.," he said. "I think the notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution."
In other words, he is comfortable with those cities' total bans!
BTW… These comments were made only one month ago.
His past actions indicate a highly committed gun grabber. His recent comments indicate no change in that attitude.
From all indications, he really does want to take away all our guns. Therefore, the fear that he wants to is completely justified, NOT false!
This Markadelphia fellow's comments are quite boring. The dodging, weaving, accusing, and misdirection receive reasoned responses based on evidence of Senator Obama's words and actions.
Yet Markadelphia prattles on. Frankly, I would have a bit of respect for him if he just said, "Heh, guys. I'm for Obama and there is not a thing you can say to change my mind."
Markadelphia hasn't commented for a full week.
I think he's taken his ball and gone home with it.
That'll show US!
:lol:
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>