How are people defending this???

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

How can you expect people to take you seriously when you say something like this?

Did you miss the post in which I admitted that this was over the top and only stated to get a rise out of cali?

If so, I'll say it again. It was way over the top.

But I'll still say that I think he's an arrogant, elitist asshole. He's said nothing to convince me otherwise.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

You are young but have an old soul. I think this is spot on.

I don't think Obama meant to be offensive, and I think he was trying to be empathetic, but he is a product of his eduaction, after all, and it is elitist and so it came out that way becasue he was being a little less guarded than ussual at the time in that setting. The impact comes from the dynmaic BGordo describes.

I just hope for more of these lovely moments. One per week would really be nice. Maybe he could make fun of retirees in sunbelt lands, who didn't go to Harvard next time. Perhaps he could attack the Rust belt, and the sinners of Las Vegas.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

Obama expressed an opinion outside the narrow band of subjects and sound bites that candidates typically bring up. It was off the cuff and rough around the corners, but it demonstrated a certain serious level of thought which Barbara Gordon sort of points out when she emphasizes that he really seemed to believe what he said.

So why, as Cali points out, do people really not seem to care about this? I think it is because people prefer candor over political correctness. Obama's POV may lack nuance, but it is his own, and besides, what is so bad about being misunderstood? Being misunderstood never got 4000 of America's finest killed in an endless foreign war money pit.

Great strategy, there. When your candidate states indefensible tripe, attack the sitting President.

The only people that don't care about this are Obama suck ups. Why is that?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Where is this substantial statistic support you talk about? If you've provided a link that I've missed, I'll look for it, but I don't remember ever seeing anything other than your opinion.

As for what I said about McCain, you are assuming you know what I was saying. Isn't it rather odd that you see something so ridiculous in my comments, but those who see the same in what Obama said are, according to you, wrong? I guess we hear what we want to hear, eh?

And no, I wasn't looking to be offended because I'm not that way. You, however, are one of the few people I've encountered in the last few days that didn't think Obama meant anything by his comments about people clinging to guns and religion because they're bitter.

How do I get that nobody is criticizing him about it? I haven't seen anyone in the media do it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that they're discussing it on CNN right now, so there is no need to tune in. But CNN is the most liberal of the media outlets on tv, so I can't imagine that what they're saying is really that tough on him.

If you want links, check out this one for the connection between religious adherence and economic conditions (you can sort by religion):

http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits

This link shows the connection globally between wealth of nations and religious adherence of citizens of those nations:

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258

From the study: "The survey finds a strong relationship between a country's religiosity and its economic status. In poorer nations, religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations.1 This relationship generally is consistent across regions and countries, although there are some exceptions, including most notably the United States, which is a much more religious country than its level of prosperity would indicate."

The exception they note with the US being more religious in general is true, but as you can see from the first link here, the demographics of religious adherents in the US are still predominantly related to poverty.

For the lack of an effect on Obama's poll numbers from his comment, look at these:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106504/Ga...ng-Strong.aspx

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/po...,5168270.story

I will look for some on the relationship between guns and income, though, as I already noted, gun ownership (registered gun ownership) tends to be more prevalent from the $0-$75,000 income levels which includes much of the middle class.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Did you miss the post in which I admitted that this was over the top and only stated to get a rise out of cali?

If so, I'll say it again. It was way over the top.

But I'll still say that I think he's an arrogant, elitist asshole. He's said nothing to convince me otherwise.

I didn't realize that the default was to believe someone was arrogant and elitist and wait for them to prove you wrong.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Great strategy, there. When your candidate states indefensible tripe, attack the sitting President.

The only people that don't care about this are Obama suck ups. Why is that?

Not according to the polls. Now it is your turn to provide some links. Show me that the only people who don't care about this are Obama suck ups. Show me that everyone but Obama suck ups are offended by what he said. You keep throwing crap out there hoping it will stick. Back it up. You can start with his poll numbers after the bitter comment (both nationally and in Pennsylvania and even in Indiana and North Carolina which haven't yet voted where he holds a lead).

[Indy Coug]

Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania has grown.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

Gosh, when did conservatives become so thin skinned? After so many years of griping that liberals were the Political Correctness Police (PCP) now the tables have turned, and it is conservatives who are the trembling daisies.

Worst case, Obama misunderstands the motivation of some rural town people, when it comes to guns, religion and their feelings about immigration, and you are up in arms over this? Poor thin skinned Republicans!

For a long time liberals have puzzled over why it is that these three issues, guns, religion and immigration, seem to play an exaggerated role in the politics of rural America. There is a normal attitude about guns, where so long as the government recognizes the right to personal ownership of reasonable small firearms, this should not be a very big issue. Then there is the clingy exaggerated position where some gun owners will continue to vote republican until every citizen has the right to own fully automatic weapons. With religion there are normal attitudes about faith and worship with reasonable positions staked out against abortion, gambling and pornography, and then there is the exaggerated clingy position where a minority goes nuts because they can't have the ten commandments displayed in a public courtroom. Same goes for immigration, which is a big legitimate issue, but one where a significant minority will continue to vote Republican until every illegal is shipped out of the country and a river of molten lava is made to run the lengths of our two borders.

Liberals understand that these are three important issues for people, but we don't understand how they came to become so exaggerated for some folks. The ignorant latte drinking assumption is that ignorant hayseeds don't know better, and are susceptible to conservative brain washing. Obama didn't take this arrogant elitist position. Instead he identified the problem as being lack of good jobs paired with low expectations from the government, and there really is some truth to that.

As for bringing up the war in Iraq, that wasn't a random potshot at the POTUS. I was trying to put this 'controversy' into perspective. If Obama's most damning problem is that he doesn't quite get the motives of some rural folks, then I would argue that maybe this hasn't registered as big as many expected because there are for more important issues to worry about this election cycle.

Wrong, worst case isn't Barak "misunderstands". Worst case is he thinks he is vastly superior intellectually and is your typical far left liberal. Worst case for us is he gets elected and governs as Ted Kennedy would with a democrat liberal congress to help him.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

Personally I hope that whoever wins the race is vastly superior intellectually than I am, because I don't think I would make a very good president with the brains God gave me. It is going to be a tough job during one of our country's most trying times. Obama is definitely the smartest and most creative of the three running. If someone thinks that traditional Democratic or Republican politics will sufficiently address the problems of our day then they should vote for either McCain or Hillary.

Deep down, I actually agree with this. I'm not sure if I've fallen for the shiny new thing aspect to his candidacy, but I do think he's the most intelligent and most creative of the three. What still worries me is his extremely liberal track record. I do think it would be a tragedy if he's elected and follows traditional liberal policies (as his voting record suggests he would)--our country cannot handle that economically right now. So the question remains, is he being upfront about what he's going to do? The jury's still out on that. He has a voting record that would suggest not. His words suggest something else. This is why these off-the-cuff moments are important--they give us an idea of who he really is. And as a religious-minded person, I'm offended by the idea that I cling to my religion as a coping mechanism, in the same way that others cling to guns or xenophobia. Is that how you would characterize your faith? Why not? Because your faith is somehow different than rural americans? That's elitism at its finest.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

It is going to be a tough job during one of our country's most trying times.

Do you really believe that this is one of our country's most trying times or are you exaggerating to make a point?