Post by: Manedwolf on April 11, 2008, 05:18:13 PM
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," Obama told supporters at a San Francisco fundraiser Sunday, according to a transcript posted on the Huffington Post blog.
"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"
"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usobam0412,0,3879544.story
Why, yes, Obama. We cling to guns, because when people say crap like that, we smell the stink of leftist dictatorships. And those guns, Obama, are what keep that from ever happening here. Gun oil smells a lot better than that stink, a putrid stench called up from the leftist-dictator killing fields all through the 20th century. Mao. Stalin. Pol Pot. All the ones that YOUR sort enabled, Obama, by making sure that the common people could not fight back.
Not here. Oh, and Obama, some people "cling to" religion as well. So did the Founding Fathers. But then, they were "typical white people", I suppose.
I hope this is broadcast FAR and wide, to all corners, to the smallest small-town barbershops and cafes. I want people to see what he really is.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 11, 2008, 08:41:14 PM
Post by: wmenorr67 on April 11, 2008, 08:42:17 PM
Post by: longeyes on April 11, 2008, 09:02:05 PM
Post by: Marvin Dao on April 12, 2008, 12:42:49 AM
Americans are "bitter" all right--about too many Obamas screwing up America for the last 40 years. The only reason this guy is still a viable candidate is that he's been protected by the mainstream media and the fluff girl academics who shadow them.
That and he's remarkably capable in the art of set piece verbal jujitsu. Give the man a scripted speech, set him in front of a receptive audience, and he'll make McCain and Hillary look strictly bush league. His response to this mess is as smooth as ever. His focus on the word "bitter" deftly deflects attention from the condescension and prevents him from having to answer how exactly his policies would help when decades of government intervention have failed miserably. Not quite as masterful as his Wright speech, but stakes are also lower.
Post by: Ryan in Maine on April 12, 2008, 04:26:31 AM
How can this guy have any supporters? Don't people realize the sht he says???
Post by: El Tejon on April 12, 2008, 04:40:18 AM
Barry, just as I've told you before in Chicago, I HAVE my guns. What are you doing to do now? Who will come to my door?
Post by: MrRezister on April 12, 2008, 05:02:39 AM
Awesome! Where do I sign up???
Post by: El Tejon on April 12, 2008, 05:42:19 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on April 12, 2008, 05:53:48 AM
And the audience for this debate who asks the questions would be us, the memebership of APS.
Post by: El Tejon on April 12, 2008, 06:20:06 AM
He'd have to withdraw from the race.
Post by: Werewolf on April 12, 2008, 06:26:35 AM
Post by: LadySmith on April 12, 2008, 06:47:45 AM
Obama concedes remarks were ill chosen
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080412/ap_on_el_pr/obama_clinton
Obama concedes remarks were ill chosen
By JIM KUHNHENN and CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writers
After a full throated response to criticism that he is condescending, Democrat Barack Obama on Saturday conceded that that comments he made about bitter working class voters who "cling to guns or religion" were ill chosen.
"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he said.
As Obama tried to quell the furor, presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton hit him with one of her lengthiest and most pointed criticisms to date.
"Senator Obama's remarks were elitist and out of touch," she said, campaigning about an hour away in Indianapolis. "They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans."
At issue are comments Obama made privately at a fundraising gathering in San Francisco last Sunday. He explained his troubles winning over working class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:
"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The comments, posted on the Huffington Post political Web site Friday, set off a storm of criticism from Clinton, Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain and a number of other GOP officials.
The flap threatened to highlight an Obama Achilles heel the image that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and carries himself with an air of superiority.
The campaign has been quick to react, hoping to defuse any damage caused with working class voters that Obama needs to win over in upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania and Indiana.
"Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at Ball State University. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through."
"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about you know how things are changing."
After acknowledging that his previous remarks could have been better phrased, he added:
"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to.
"And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives, and what we need is a government that is actually paying attention. Government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream."
But Clinton struck hard, calling Obama's comments "demeaning." The increased attack showed that Clinton is eager to hold on to her working class support and is looking to open new questions about Obama's judgment that would make voters and Democratic officials reconsider their support for the Illinois senator.
"I was raised with Midwestern values and an unshakable faith in America and its policies," she said. "Now, Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it's a matter of constitutional right. Americans who believe in God believe it's a matter of personal faith.
"I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith. The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.
"Our faith is the faith of our parents and our grandparents. It is a fundamental expression of who we are and what we believe."
___
Associated Press Writer Charles Babington contributed from Indianapolis.
Post by: gunsmith on April 12, 2008, 09:27:10 AM
I encountered it in
in EVERY political discussion I had when I lived there.
People would scream and want to attack you if you told them you could never vote for an anti gun candidate.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 12, 2008, 09:28:31 AM
Quote
"Senator Obama's remarks were elitist and out of touch," she said, campaigning about an hour away in Indianapolis. "They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans."
Pot, meet kettle.
Quote
"I was raised with Midwestern values and an unshakable faith in America and its policies," she said. "Now, Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it's a matter of constitutional right. Americans who believe in God believe it's a matter of personal faith.
"I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith. The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.
"Our faith is the faith of our parents and our grandparents. It is a fundamental expression of who we are and what we believe."
"I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith. The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.
"Our faith is the faith of our parents and our grandparents. It is a fundamental expression of who we are and what we believe."
Now this is well-spoken. If she demonstrated with her actions that she actually thought like this she'd be a real candidate. Someone you could have a rational disagreement on details with.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 12, 2008, 09:48:53 AM
Post by: gunsmith on April 12, 2008, 10:31:11 AM
Quote
Bitter and clinging to religion, huh? Like his preacher friend?
OOOOOooooohhhhhh!
BURN! BABY BURN!
Man, you hit the nail squarely on the head that time, fistful!
Post by: roo_ster on April 12, 2008, 11:03:08 AM
Wtf? Really! Wtf?!
How can this guy have any supporters? Don't people realize the sht he says???
How can this guy have any supporters? Don't people realize the sht he says???
They are wondering to themselves what's the big deal about what he said.
Post by: El Tejon on April 12, 2008, 11:49:24 AM
*******************************************************************************
TERRE HAUTE, Indiana - After a full-throated response to criticism that he is condescending, Democrat Barack Obama on Saturday conceded that that comments he made about bitter working class voters who "cling to guns or religion" were ill chosen.
"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he said.
As Obama tried to quell the furor, presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton hit him with one of her lengthiest and most pointed criticisms to date.
"Senator Obama's remarks were elitist and out of touch," she said, campaigning about an hour away in Indianapolis. "They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans."
At issue are comments Obama made privately at a fundraising gathering in San Francisco last Sunday. He explained his troubles winning over working class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:
"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The comments, posted on the Huffington Post political Web site Friday, set off a storm of criticism from Clinton, Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain and a number of other GOP officials.
The flap threatened to highlight an Obama Achilles heel the image that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and carries himself with an air of superiority.
Obama reacts
The campaign has been quick to react, hoping to defuse any damage caused with working class voters that Obama needs to win over in upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania and Indiana.
Obama: 'Bitter' remarks ill chosen
April 12: Barack Obama wishes he had chosen his words more carefully, but stands by his point that voters are angry and frustrated by Washington politics.
MSNBC
"Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at Ball State University. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through."
"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about you know how things are changing."
After acknowledging that his previous remarks could have been better phrased, he added:
"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to.
"And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives, and what we need is a government that is actually paying attention. Government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream."
Post by: MrRezister on April 12, 2008, 12:53:44 PM
"Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't think anyone outside of that building would ever know I said that!"
Post by: outerlimit on April 12, 2008, 02:14:29 PM
Smooth move Ex-Lax
Post by: Bigjake on April 12, 2008, 05:02:50 PM
^Translation:
"Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't think anyone outside of that building would ever know I said that!"
"Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't think anyone outside of that building would ever know I said that!"
The race WAS his to lose. Moron.
Post by: Standing Wolf on April 12, 2008, 05:25:27 PM
Post by: gunsmith on April 12, 2008, 08:52:09 PM
Quote
But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to.
& thats why gun grabbers lose in national elections, they won't listen.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 13, 2008, 05:12:04 AM
Quote
"Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at Ball State University. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through."
No, no, Obama. I know some of those people in Illinois. They are bitter at CHICAGO and DALEY, because they feel like only Chicago corruption/left politics matter, and they, more conservative, are treated like the ugly cousins, kept out in the cornfields, not allowed to matter. They feel like the rest of the state doesn't matter, politically, and just gets edicts sent down from the Imperial City on the lake!
Post by: johnster999 on April 13, 2008, 05:51:33 AM
I pledge conditional allegiance, to the United States of G@dd@mn America, and to the tolerance for which some of us stand, not including those bitter, gun-toting or bible-thumping types (you know who I mean), one multicultural nation of which for the first time in my adult life I am really proud, under Obama, indivisible (for we are the ones), with federal benefits and free health care for all but those bitter types previously mentioned.
Post by: El Tejon on April 13, 2008, 05:54:54 AM
Post by: Ben on April 13, 2008, 09:31:07 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/13/by-popular-demand-snobwear/
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 13, 2008, 09:47:29 AM
Like most elites they feel that they have the sole grasp on revealed truth, they cannot conceive that you might have a reasoned counter-argument.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 13, 2008, 11:26:22 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 13, 2008, 11:52:13 AM
"I can't see how that man won, no one I know voted for him."
There are people in this country whose minds work in foreign ways to mine and there are a lot of them. I try not to predict the effect of some event I consider major anymore. Americans are too weird and varied for that anymore.
Post by: ilbob on April 13, 2008, 12:20:29 PM
what truely is a shock is that so many americans don't understand that liberalism is at its core anti-american.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 13, 2008, 12:58:37 PM
Personally, I think the Wright speech and the events surrounding it were the beginning of the end of his candidacy. Speeches like this only bury him further. He will keep a lot of those core supporters, but I don't see him gaining anymore.
Nah. Stuff like that will be forgotten by Nov., buried under the mountains of negative that will be heaped on McCain. Once the Dems pick a candidate, the media will set its full attention to the demonizing of John McCain, Enemy of the People, Pawn of Haliburton, or whatever. It will make any past criticism from conservatives seem like hagiography.
Or were you saying that Obama would lose the nomination?
Post by: roo_ster on April 13, 2008, 04:49:16 PM
My dad likes to point out the reaction of a Manhattan socialite to the election of some politician years ago.
"I can't see how that man one, no one I know voted for him."
"I can't see how that man one, no one I know voted for him."
Pauline Kael.
Post by: seeker_two on April 14, 2008, 02:00:54 AM
...hope McCain and the Libertarian & Constitution parties are taking notes....
Post by: El Tejon on April 14, 2008, 02:24:56 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 14, 2008, 04:17:16 AM
See why I think he's a useful idiot who wouldn't make it through even one term?...
...hope McCain and the Libertarian & Constitution parties are taking notes....
...hope McCain and the Libertarian & Constitution parties are taking notes....
The Libertarian party is currently completely baked and has gone out to Denny's because they have the munchies. Pay attention? Nahh.
Post by: El Tejon on April 14, 2008, 04:40:33 AM
How I would love to go and walk around in a DEA windbreaker.
Post by: grampster on April 14, 2008, 05:26:55 AM
Since my conscience won't allow me to vote for any D or R for president for the first time in my 64 years, (huh, I just noticed that 1964 was the first time I voted. What a coincidence, maybe even providential.) I'm glad Bob Barr decided to run Libertarian. At first I thought he would screw things up, but actually he's given those of us who love our country an opportunity to vote with a clear conscience.
If one actually thinks about it, it doesn't make any difference who wins on the R or D side. They are all leftist statists. I sometimes wonder that electing McCain wouldn't actually be the worst of two evils. He is a politician that would make it easy for what few good people there are in congress to do distasteful things. Hillary and Obama are so far to the left that perhaps the congress might obstruct their socialist agenda and we'll have 4 years of gridlock.
As for federal judges, McCain would not appoint constitutionalist judges because it would offend his pals on the left. Might as well have the ability to blame Democrats for appointing leftists to the bench than to bow our heads in shame because a Republican did it.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on April 14, 2008, 07:32:21 AM
One is a number. Won is victory in an election.
I fixed that yesterday.
Post by: El Tejon on April 14, 2008, 08:02:34 AM
Language Nazis get no love!
Grammar Nazi=>
Post by: longeyes on April 14, 2008, 08:19:48 AM
Quote
As for federal judges, McCain would not appoint constitutionalist judges because it would offend his pals on the left. Might as well have the ability to blame Democrats for appointing leftists to the bench than to bow our heads in shame because a Republican did it.
The primary reason to vote for McCain is to make sure we don't get two, three, four hard-core leftists on SCOTUS and a socialist nation under the pretext of law. You may be right that he isn't to be trusted but we at least have a chance of exerting pressure on him. If after hearing our passion on this matter he betrays our trust, we can decide what needs to be done at that point. The reality is that America minus the legitimacy of the Supreme Court will no longer be America, and we will all be political "freelancers" at that point.
Post by: seeker_two on April 14, 2008, 11:09:56 AM
....you don't need guns, I'll protect you.....
....you don't need God, I'll answer your prayers.....
....you don't need to worry about illegal immigrants, I'll provide for all....
...typical liberal politician arrogance that would make Comrade Stalin proud....
Post by: MechAg94 on April 15, 2008, 06:09:51 AM
I don't know what McCain has said about appointing judges, but if I had to blindly go with the appointments of either of them, I would likely pick his. More Ginsberg appointments don't impress me.
Post by: Ryan in Maine on April 15, 2008, 08:55:38 AM
Wtf? Really! Wtf?!
How can this guy have any supporters? Don't people realize the sht he says???
How can this guy have any supporters? Don't people realize the sht he says???
They are wondering to themselves what's the big deal about what he said.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 15, 2008, 08:57:07 AM
Wtf? Really! Wtf?!
How can this guy have any supporters? Don't people realize the sht he says???
How can this guy have any supporters? Don't people realize the sht he says???
They are wondering to themselves what's the big deal about what he said.
I think you mean specifically in Philly. People I know in PA, as in "PA that's not the leftist, dysfunctional pit of socialism and gang violence that Philly has become", are disgusted.
Post by: Ryan in Maine on April 15, 2008, 11:54:27 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on April 15, 2008, 12:41:31 PM
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/04/15/a_living_lie?page=1
A Living Lie
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.
Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.
There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.
Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.
Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.
Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."
Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.
Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.
In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.
Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.
People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public. continued...
However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.
Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.
Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.
Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."
Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.
It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.
Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.
Post by: Ezekiel on April 15, 2008, 03:23:26 PM
There aren't many places he could have said that and not been booed off the stage.
Oh, there are tons of places where he would be lauded: they're all in Europe, where the dollar is getting killed.
That said, he had a point.
The folks he refers to are the remnants of Natural Selection. If they could actively compete, they wouldn't require their described binkies. If they CAN compete, they are not threatened by such observations.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 15, 2008, 06:14:34 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 15, 2008, 06:15:14 PM
Post by: Glock Glockler on April 15, 2008, 06:19:32 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on April 16, 2008, 04:51:20 AM
There aren't many places he could have said that and not been booed off the stage.
Oh, there are tons of places where he would be lauded: they're all in Europe, where the dollar is getting killed.
That said, he had a point.
The folks he refers to are the remnants of Natural Selection. If they could actively compete, they wouldn't require their described binkies. If they CAN compete, they are not threatened by such observations.
Natural selection? Do tell.
Suppose a major natural disaster or terrorist attack hit the US and completely knocked out infrastructure, no food trucks, no power, no anything for a long time.
Who would be surviving, in SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST?
The San Francisco liberals who think food comes from whichever is the trendiest restaurant of the week, who don't have any food storage, no guns, no survival skills at all?
Or the Pennsylvania small-town people with their guns and religion, a sense of community and self-reliance, who can adapt to hardship?
Well?
That's the problem with elitist liberals. They have a skewed sense of reality, and never realize that when it comes to things that actually matter in the most basic sense, like basic survival skills, self-reliance, adaptability to hardship and the ability to obtain food or protect others, they're completely and utterly useless.
In times when civilization breaks, if you can heal the sick or treat injury, grow food, shoot a gun, catch fish, hunt, dress game, build or repair things with your hands and basic tools, cook or bake, build with wood, weld, fix a vehicle, or make things with chemicals, even know how to identify plants or build a water distiller, you are useful.
I've met a lot of elitist liberals who have none of those skills, nor the mental adaptability to do anything but their meaningless "academic" or "art" tasks, everything else comes from someone else. And they would be nothing but useless baggage in any group of survivors.
I wonder if they'll ever realize that.
Post by: Ezekiel on April 16, 2008, 06:59:49 AM
Sure, I am from Oklahoma. I can do the vast majority of the crap mentioned. But lets not pretend it prepares one for any society that hasn't been bombed back to the Stone Age. Such folks are perfectly prepared for life in 1860! We're not going back there anytime soon. In the society of today, if you require those skills to live, it's only because you haven't any others. And so, history passes these folk by, their only remaining hope being to pray for a post-Apocalyptic society wherein they, and their idols, become relevant again.
Hence, the bitterness.
I wonder if they'll ever realize that.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 16, 2008, 07:02:56 AM
At this point, I'm inclined to agree with Fistful as to what you're trying to do. Whatever. Go navel-gaze. If something bad happens, mommy government will always be there to save you.
Post by: Ezekiel on April 16, 2008, 07:17:54 AM
They CHOSE to remain, be under-insured, live in a flood area, etc. Sympathy? Sure. Consider them Rocket Scientists? Uh, no.
I think I've been here long enough to not be trolling. (sigh)
Post by: MechAg94 on April 16, 2008, 08:55:43 AM
Quote
Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.
From my earlier post of Thomas Sowell's article.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 16, 2008, 02:41:25 PM
I think I've been here long enough to not be trolling. (sigh)
Is there a time limit now?
Post by: wooderson on April 16, 2008, 03:04:34 PM
Quote
Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.
Sowell is remarkably dishonest. I would say it's risky banking one's reputation on an uncritical audience, but it seems to have worked out well for him so far.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 16, 2008, 03:13:55 PM
I find it interesting that you can't disagree with him without 1) calling him a liar, and 2) calling all his readers ignorant. It fits with the posts I have seen from you in the past.
Post by: wooderson on April 16, 2008, 03:35:41 PM
I'm no scholar on Marx, but I know the letter that line is from (it's available online). Presumably Sowell does as well, if he's quoting it - which makes him dishonest (not 'a liar'), yes. Or he doesn't know the context of the quote, jacked it from elsewhere, and used it for his own purposes because it sounded damning for Obama. This, too, would make him dishonest.
And I called his audience "uncritical," not "ignorant." Which I stand by - Sowell's been quoted on hundreds of right-wing blogs and forums now - not one person seems to have bothered to look at what he references to see if it holds up to basic examination.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on April 16, 2008, 03:54:07 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on April 16, 2008, 04:04:13 PM
Since the quote was part of his opinion about what liberals actually think of the working class, please provide a more expanded Marx quote to show he is wrong. Referring to letters that are "easy" to find is pointless.
Regardless of that, it doesn't change his 'opinion' or its accuracy in reference to Obama and other modern leftist liberals.
Post by: wooderson on April 16, 2008, 04:10:37 PM
Quote
Ah yes, dishonest also includes cheating, deceiving, and fraud as well as lying so I guess you are right....well...not really.
Read your statement again. Look for words that start with 'd.'Quote
Since the quote was part of his opinion about what liberals actually think of the working class, please provide a more expanded Marx quote to show he is wrong. Referring to letters that are "easy" to find is pointless.
If you actually care to assess the honesty of Sowell's statement, you can look up the letter without much trouble. Sowell has, after all, provided a quote to Google.If you're unwilling to do that, I assume you're not interested in loking at Sowell's argument critically.
Quote
Regardless of that, it doesn't change his 'opinion' or its accuracy in reference to Obama and other modern leftist liberals.
I didn't say anything about his opinions in general - I just pointed out the dishonesty of that particular argument.
Post by: wooderson on April 16, 2008, 04:19:06 PM
"Just as the bourgeois party in Prussia discredited itself and brought about its present wretched situation by seriously believing that with the New Era the government had fallen into its lap by the grace of the Prince Regent, so the workers party will discredit itself even more if it imagines that the Bismarck era or any other Prussian era will make the golden apples just drop into its mouth, by grace of the king. It is beyond all question that Lassalles ill-starred illusion that a Prussian government might intervene with socialist measures will be crowned with disappointment. The logic of circumstances will tell. But the honour of the workers party requires that it reject such illusions, even before their hollowness is punctured by experience. The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing."
A statement of political strategy. A 'working class party' that is co-opted by the Prussian authorities is 'nothing' - ineffectual and doomed to failure.
Pretty sure we've seen similar arguments concerning the Republican Party and its need to represent conservatism or defending America, not caving to the Islamo-lovin' liberals, etc.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 16, 2008, 04:30:20 PM
Post by: wooderson on April 16, 2008, 04:32:06 PM
"We have to confess it: Capitalist mankind in the lump is detestable. Class hatred is not a mere matter of envy on the part of the poor and contempt and dread on the part of the rich. Both rich and poor are really hateful in themselves. For my part I hate the poor and look eagerly to their extermination. I pity the rich a little, but am equally bent on their extermination. The working classes, the business classes, the professional classes, the propertied classes, the ruling classes, are each more odious than the other: they have no right to live: I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves. I do not want any human child to be brought up as I was brought up, nor as any child I have known was brought up. Do you?" (emphasis mine, though the un-emphasized last sentence is the key.)
I would say that the passage is markedly different in orientation than the base hatred of the working-class alleged by Sowell.
I would characterize such a vast difference as dishonesty (deception) on the part of Sowell. He knows his audience doesn't care to check his sources. And he knows that when his nonsense is published in a newspaper, no one is going to publish the letter to the editor correcting his dishonesty. It takes a lot of space (as we've seen here) to correct his deceptive statements - the guy who gets in first with the bigger lie wins.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 16, 2008, 04:34:48 PM
Post by: wooderson on April 16, 2008, 04:37:49 PM
http://books.google.com/books?id=ys13gZliXFAC&pg=PA456&lpg=PA456&dq=%22I+should+despair+if+I+did+not+know+that+they+will+all+die+presently%22+-Sowell&source=web&ots=3laVsTQ_in&sig=gbN56yTuYHA3CwJuep2BEM8VTpM&hl=en
Marx - letter within a letter, here
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_02_18.htm
Post by: MechAg94 on April 16, 2008, 04:42:57 PM
Post by: wooderson on April 16, 2008, 04:55:06 PM
"Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves.""
Except that Bernard's "detestable people" consisted of everyone on Earth. Sowell's insinuation is that they were part of a select group singled out for distaste. Likewise, the sentence he quotes about wishing for 'them' to die is about, again, everyone on Earth.
You don't see that, or you're simply giving Sowell a pass because you agree with his broader point?
"Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda."
Except, as you've read, Marx's 'nothing' is a reference to the power and effectiveness of parties, not a statement of disapproval when the 'working class' disagrees with him. ('They are nothing to me' being the direction Sowell wants to point toward.)
Again, do you not see this, or are you giving Sowell a freebie for being on the right side?
Post by: Ezekiel on April 17, 2008, 05:18:34 AM
I think I've been here long enough to not be trolling. (sigh)
Is there a time limit now?
For scapegoats?
Post by: roo_ster on April 17, 2008, 05:43:11 AM
Here we go again, arguing what the meaning of "is" is.
Too many po-mo lit crit courses, I suspect.
"Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves.""
Except that Bernard's "detestable people" consisted of everyone on Earth. Sowell's insinuation is that they were part of a select group singled out for distaste. Likewise, the sentence he quotes about wishing for 'them' to die is about, again, everyone on Earth.
Except that Bernard's "detestable people" consisted of everyone on Earth. Sowell's insinuation is that they were part of a select group singled out for distaste. Likewise, the sentence he quotes about wishing for 'them' to die is about, again, everyone on Earth.
Sowell & GBS:
Quote from: Sowell
Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."
See that part about 'included the working class among the "detestable" people?' It is pretty clear from GBS's quotes and Sowell's surrounding verbiage that GBS considered the working class a subset of the set of folks who "have no right to live." I think Sowell read, understood the context and conveyed it accurately and that you are the one using <d-word_of_choice>. Or have merely not understood his written words.
Sowell & Marx:
Quote from: Sowell
Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.
Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.
Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.
Quote from: wooderson
A statement of political strategy.
wooderson, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Marx's life is strewn with examples of both contempt for human beings not useful to him and comment on how to implement his particular policies in his particular framework. The disgusting little cretin even had the audacity to denounce socialists who were getting actual results, relative to his navel-gazing & ineffectual theorizing.
As to the sentence in question, it serves to illustrate both Marx's belief that non-Marxist socialist movements are doomed and Marx's belief that working class members on that track are worthless to him & his goals.
It is a wonder that anyone wit two wits to rub together ever took Marx and his never-been-in-a-factory *expletive deleted*ss seriously.
Post by: wooderson on April 17, 2008, 12:06:05 PM
Quote
Too many po-mo lit crit courses, I suspect.
No, a basic understanding of English. "Dishonest" and "liar" are not the same word. Nor are "ignorant" and "uncritical" - these two are particularly divergent.Quote
See that part about 'included the working class among the "detestable" people?' It is pretty clear from GBS's quotes and Sowell's surrounding verbiage that GBS considered the working class a subset of the set of folks who "have no right to live."
You, apparently, didn't read the passage.Shaw, first and foremost, isn't arguing that anyone "has no right to live."
And second, "the set of folks" in question is everyone. The working class are not singled out among a group of undesirables - Shaw's rhetorical point is that in the context of late-19th century capitalism, society is FUBAR and we are all less because of it.
I note that you don't quote the entire passage either: "The working classes, the business classes, the professional classes, the propertied classes, the ruling classes, are each more odious than the other" - once again, my basic proficiency with the language informs me that this would make "the working classes" the least odious.
Quote
wooderson, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Given the context of the statement - you know, the meaning - the "two concepts" are "mutually exclusive," because the "concept" proposed by Sowell doesn't exist. It doesn't take someone with "too many po-mo lit crit courses" to read his words. There is no reasonable interpretation of them that aligns with Marx detesting the "working classes" in any way.
Quote
As to the sentence in question, it serves to illustrate both Marx's belief that non-Marxist socialist movements are doomed and Marx's belief that working class members on that track are worthless to him & his goals.
You're almost right, though your reading of rhetoric is inept. "Working class parties on that track" are worthless to him. This is made clear - Marx could not possibly reference political parties and movements more often in one paragraph.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 17, 2008, 01:59:12 PM
Sowell's quotes of Marx and Shaw were accurate enough, as far as they go. No amount of your hair-splitting will change that. And even if they were inaccurate, what of it? It wouldn't lessen the validity of Sowell's main point appreciably.
If you want to discredit Sowell, come up with a real reason. Give a sound argument why his main thesis was wrong. Don't pull a couple of his quotes and pretend that they're taken out of context and thus "dishonest".
Post by: Sergeant Bob on April 17, 2008, 02:05:15 PM
What?
Post by: wooderson on April 17, 2008, 03:28:26 PM
Quote
Give it up, wood. It's painfully clear that you're grasping at straws trying to discredit a man who you disagree with.
So give me a reasonable interpretation in which Bernard Shaw is actually wishing for the extermination of the working classes.This I gotta see.
Quote
Sowell's quotes of Marx and Shaw were accurate enough, as far as they go.
Marx's quote is the one I picked up on first (being a more famous phrase), but the Shaw quote is actually more problematic.When we source a quote to someone, we are attributing not just words but meaning. To suggest, using the passage cited, that Shaw was wishing death upon working people and detested them is ethically abhorrent.
Maybe you have no problem with Sowell making things up as he goes along, but I do.
Quote
And even if they were inaccurate, what of it?
Remember when I called his audience uncritical, and certain people got their dander up?Quote
If you want to discredit Sowell, come up with a real reason.
I consider base dishonesty plenty of reason.Quote
Give a sound argument why his main thesis was wrong. Don't pull a couple of his quotes and pretend that they're taken out of context and thus "dishonest".
I don't care about his "main thesis." I've said nothing about his "main thesis."I noticed that he misused a quote. Then I noticed that he gravely misused another. This is the basic concept of "dishonesty." If you can defend either usage on their merits, go ahead.
Or, as you've already done, accept a little bit of dishonesty when the cause is righteous.
But don't side-step it.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 17, 2008, 05:11:02 PM
I'll say it again, the Marx and Shaw quotes are accurate as far as they go. You may not like it, but it's true nonetheless. You accuse Sowell's audience of being uncritical, but I think you are the one lacking critical thinking here. Do you have the honesty to admit your misjudgment?
I expect you'll dodge. I expect you'll continue to split hairs, parse the semantics, obfuscate, bloviate, filibuster, and and play your beloved word games until the discussion loses all meaning. I have no interest in going there, so I'll leave the last word to you and exit the discussion now. Ciao.
Post by: wooderson on April 17, 2008, 05:55:32 PM
Quote
The point Sowell was making was that radical leftists have contempt for the working classes. Marx, Shaw, and Obama are alike in that regard. The Marx and Shaw quotes both illustrate the disdain they each have for the poor.
Er... no.That's what Sowell wants to demonstrate. Problem is, neither quote actually says what he claims - again, the Shaw quote in particular is an egregious deception on the part of Sowell.
But, as is evidenced here, his audience (when exposed to the real quote) believes that ends justify the means and thus he is comfortable with his dishonesty. If only I could find such selfless patronage.
Quote
I'll say it again, the Marx and Shaw quotes are accurate as far as they go.
You'll say it again, but you still won't have read the Shaw quotes, apparently. You should try that.I'll throw you an easy question, though. Who or what does the "they" in "they do not deserve to live" refer to?
Post by: longeyes on April 18, 2008, 02:05:55 PM
It's all in the wrist, Barack.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 19, 2008, 03:49:43 AM
Aside from that, a local pundit nailed what Obama and his wife really are.
They're 80's yuppie throwbacks, complete with yuppie guilt.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on April 19, 2008, 05:38:05 AM
Post by: longeyes on April 19, 2008, 03:48:31 PM
It's not hard to con the guilt-stricken.
Post by: Modifiedbrowning on April 19, 2008, 04:44:00 PM
Quote
So give me a reasonable interpretation in which Bernard Shaw is actually wishing for the extermination of the working classes.
GBS said:Quote
For my part I hate the poor and look eagerly to their extermination. I pity the rich a little, but am equally bent on their extermination. The working classes, the business classes, the professional classes, the propertied classes, the ruling classes, are each more odious than the other: they have no right to live: I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves.
Emphasis mine:Quote
For my part I hate the poor and look eagerly to their extermination.
Post by: gunsmith on April 20, 2008, 05:48:48 AM
Quote
Aside from that, a local pundit nailed what Obama and his wife really are.
They're 80's yuppie throwbacks, complete with yuppie guilt.
They're 80's yuppie throwbacks, complete with yuppie guilt.
That really nails it MW, he is a totally 80's dude.
He hasn't grown spiritually, emotionally or politically since that era.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 20, 2008, 11:52:10 AM
Although the eighties were the last time the Dem. party wasn't dominated by the Clintons. Hmm. Something there, maybe.
Post by: RevDisk on April 20, 2008, 04:55:17 PM
Philly and Harrisburg are probably still fairly Obama friendly. Go figure. Sigh.
Post by: wooderson on April 20, 2008, 08:00:01 PM
Do you not believe that when one sentence which follows another on the same topic, the latter modifies or informs the former? Are all sentences separate entities? Is the concept of the paragraph a lie?
Post by: Glock Glockler on April 21, 2008, 04:58:38 PM
Here he gives Hillary the bird at a campaign event, it's comforting to know how much respect he treats members of his own party with, I wonder how he'll do with govts that are hostile to us.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on April 22, 2008, 07:29:14 AM
Just watched the clip. Doesn't exactly look like he's giving her the finger, as you put it. Looks more like he's scratching under his eye, and just happened to use the middle finger. My dad does that all the time. I know it's kinda joked at as a surreptitious way to give someone the finger. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Obama supporter, but I think that he's got enough political savvy to NOT do that, even in a "sneaky" manner.
Post by: johnster999 on April 22, 2008, 08:16:19 AM
@Glock
Just watched the clip. Doesn't exactly look like he's giving her the finger, as you put it. Looks more like he's scratching under his eye, and just happened to use the middle finger. My dad does that all the time. I know it's kinda joked at as a surreptitious way to give someone the finger. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Obama supporter, but I think that he's got enough political savvy to NOT do that, even in a "sneaky" manner.
Just watched the clip. Doesn't exactly look like he's giving her the finger, as you put it. Looks more like he's scratching under his eye, and just happened to use the middle finger. My dad does that all the time. I know it's kinda joked at as a surreptitious way to give someone the finger. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an Obama supporter, but I think that he's got enough political savvy to NOT do that, even in a "sneaky" manner.
I don't know. I hope your right. I'd like the think somebody who has a real chance at the white house would be above flipping his opponent a childish, sneaky bird during a speech. It seemed the crowd at it up. A bit later he used the same hand to do a "brush off" gesture related to some criticism Clinton had made of him which drew similar cheers.
Post by: Glock Glockler on April 22, 2008, 11:24:14 AM
This is especially interesting considering how much every network replayed the Bush-Cheney "big time" comment about the reporter several years back.
Obama is getting a free pass by the media.
Post by: roo_ster on April 22, 2008, 11:50:49 AM
Even the Unholy Messiah of Neo-Progressive Doom is not so perfect in his futurechangehoped-ness that he is immune for minor skin irritation.
Post by: wooderson on April 22, 2008, 01:39:40 PM
Post by: wooderson on April 22, 2008, 01:40:31 PM
Post by: gunsmith on April 22, 2008, 05:01:20 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if it really was.
Post by: Glock Glockler on April 22, 2008, 07:04:01 PM
He knows exactly what he's doing.