Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: albo: Defiance_: Speak English or go home" seems to me to be xenophobic if not outright racist, yeah.

Expecting people to adopt to their new country has been applied to American immigrants in the past, and they have done it successfully, to their great benefit; wouldn't it be racist to exclude hispanic immigrants from that same expectation and civil responsibility?

Here's how it works, always has worked, and will continue to work:

1st generation: Don't speakee Inglis
2nd Generation: Speaks both languages
3rd Generation: Strictly English, knows maybe a few words in (whatever) language to talk to grandma, American as apple pie.

Expecting this to change is not realistic.

We need change in order to progress this country into the future and to bring back americas greatness.

/I had to go there.

KIA: Actually, he did. I read the text. Did you?

He did! He didn't! He Did! He Didn't!

How about this, please quote me from the text of what he said that supports your assertions and we can go from there.

Anything else will be a waste of both of our times.

Typical White Person: Instead of acknowledging that those beliefs were valid to start with, he dismissed them the product of bitterness.

No he didn't. He said they vote that way because Washington doesn't do anything about their economic situation. He never said they start loving guns and god and start hating gays because of it. They just tend to vote based on those issues when they realize that the federal government doesn't care about their economic situation. Anybody can see that, and it appears the rural Pennsylvania voters do.

Subby apparently doesn't understand the principles behind mathematics, which reflect the interaction of numbers not the convenience of verbal morality.

That being said, Republicans lick Bush's wrinkled rural country assh*le and relish it's flavor to the detriment of this country's ethical and economic fiber like the goose-stepping obedient shills they are.

albo: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Expecting this to change is not realistic

and i'm not expecting it to change. i only want immigrants, all of them, to enter legally.

Sure sounded to me that you were complaining about them not speaking English, but whatever, fine by me. If we want legal Mexican immigrants, knowing the mexican government is useless, we should simply set up a huge office next to our embassy. Have them bring their ID by, photograph them and fingerprint them, and send them on in. Boom. Problem solved. Then of course we have to prosecute people hiring illegals, and prosecute them with extreme prejudice.

But legal immigration is not what the businesses want. Legals get rights, rights cost money and remove the advantage of hiring illegal immigrants (in other words, these business thrive on breaking American law to make a profit, like drug dealers and so forth).

Typical White Person: Instead of acknowledging that those beliefs were valid to start with, he dismissed them the product of bitterness.

Again... no... he's saying that they reserve their trust in those other things instead of having at least trust in their government to actually do what they say they will. In other words, they tune out when it comes to politicians and tune in on those other things because of the many times they've been let down by politicians and government.

You seem to think that he was implying that the ideas of having trust in your government and trust in your guns or religion are somehow mutually exclusive. They are not.

DamnYankees: But why do you care so much if they enter legally? Do you care this much about jaywalking?

I don't know about you, but I care about tuberculosis, whooping cough, influenza, leprosy, and a whole slew of various diseases which are screened during the legal process. I also care about whether a person has a record as a murderer or rapist, whether they have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, whether they have any warrants out for their arrest, all of which is screened in the legal process.

Since none of these can be incurred as a result of jaywalking, and all have potentially severe consequences for the citizenry, I think that the comparison to jaywalking is deeply flawed. There are a number of extremely good reasons why the legal immigration process is valuable and should be enforced.

GaryPDX: Well, since he's the favorite of just about every communist organization out there, including OpenLeft and the ISO (just a couple of many), it's not hard to see where his ideology lies.

Therefore, since the anti-Catholic Hagee is supporting the republicans we can clearly claim that Republicans are Anti-Catholic.

Simplest Quantum System Conceivable:
Here's the real question:

What do conservatives think that people who become bitter and lose faith in government turn to, if not those things Obama said?


Here's the real question:

Why do people think the government is something we need to have faith in?


Aren't we conflating distinct opinions on social issues (gays, minorities, religion) with opinions on economic issues? Sure they're related, perhaps mostly in dealing with immigrants.

But as a Pennsyltuckian, I'm a tad insulted that xenophobia is seen as the prime motivator when I tend to think it has to do with a sense of "fair play."

KIA: I think it has nothing at all to do with elitism. Let's face it: the last time we had an ordinary, non-elite person running for President was... not in living memory. Every other candidate has been a millionaire or professional politician from the "right" families with the "right" connections.

The real controversy is over Obama's failure to properly connect cause and effect. He attributed Americans' love of guns, hunting, church, family and community as being a negative result of bitterness and anger. Let's think that one through. Is it actually possible that people embraced religion, hunting, guns, family and community before the Clinton and Bush eras? I think it very likely they did, since none of these are recent developments.

He classified small towns' preference for independence and self-reliance as negatives too: "anti-immigrant" and "anti-trade." Suddenly, it's wrong to prefer doing business with your friends and neighbors you know you can trust instead of nameless faceless entities located thousands of miles away or new arrivals whose background, reliability, and status are unknown. Bad thing?

This brief insight into the New Democrat mindset, where traditional American values are suddenly negatives to be looked down upon, is the shocker. In one fell swoop, Obama has revealed himself to be anti-religion, anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-family, anti-community, anti-self reliance, pro-foreign business, pro-immigration, and pro-government dependency. It's everything the Republicans have accused the Democrats of writ large, bold and uncontravertable.

Now the Democrats have their Reagan moment, only it's not the candidate claiming the party abandoned them. It's the people who have seen a new reality shoved in their faces: the Democrats have abandoned the people and the traditional values of this nation. You need only look at the aftermath to realize how badly the entire party is suffering from this. Suddenly, one of the leading Presidential candidates is doing shots of whiskey in a bar in Indiana. We haven't seen that kind of tomfoolery since George Bush Sr. pulled a derringer in a bar to contradict his "wimpy" detractors two decades ago.

He lost too.

Right out of the park.

Crewmannumber6: Washington is not to blame for Ohio's problems, Columbus is.

Washington does nothing to stop the offshoring of American jobs, such as many of those in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan.

paygun:

Right out of the park.

A foul ball out of the park is still a foul ball.

KIA: There are a number of extremely good reasons why the legal immigration process is valuable and should be enforced.

That is very true. However, having a legal route in place does not fix the problem, nor will a wall. Personally I think we either need a lot more in the way of a guest worker program or some kind of more streamlined (not less adequate) method of getting immigrants through a legal system.

As it is plainly obvious, what we've been doing in the recent past hasn't been working so well... we need to find a new way to do it, because the flow of people isn't going to stop, the real problem is our inability to deal with the flow in a meaningful and efficient way.

KIA: DamnYankees: But why do you care so much if they enter legally? Do you care this much about jaywalking?

I don't know about you, but I care about tuberculosis, whooping cough, influenza, leprosy, and a whole slew of various diseases which are screened during the legal process. I also care about whether a person has a record as a murderer or rapist, whether they have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, whether they have any warrants out for their arrest, all of which is screened in the legal process.

Since none of these can be incurred as a result of jaywalking, and all have potentially severe consequences for the citizenry, I think that the comparison to jaywalking is deeply flawed. There are a number of extremely good reasons why the legal immigration process is valuable and should be enforced.

I don't know anyone who is in favor of reforming the legal immigration process who is not in favor of a criminal background check and health screening prior to entry. It's the 10 years of bureaucracy and red tape that we feel are unnecessary.

The exact quote appears to be:

"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 key words: bitter, cling, frustrations.

The things associated with bitterness, clinging:

1) guns.
2) religion.
3) antipathy to people who aren't like them.
4) anti-immigrant sentiment.
5) anti-trade sentiment.

The unavoidable implication is if people were not bitter, they would not cling to any of the foregoing. The clear thrust of the statement was to suggest that anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-trade sentiment was a false cover for frustration and bitterness.

atomsmoosher: Why do people think the government is something we need to have faith in?

Because we pay them to do a job... we should be able to have faith in our employees to do their job and do it to our liking. If we don't, there is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

What he said was true. Calling people bitter is not an insult, unless you are referring to the way they taste.

Johnny C and The Homer Tax:

Aren't you actually against illegal immigration and favoring expansion of the legal process beyond the one million people per year permitted to enter this nation? How many is enough? All of them? Ten million? Five?

KIA: The exact quote appears to be:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter,

That little bit makes it appear that you left something out before that sentence. Something that would, you know, put it in farking context.

A more bitter and jaded man that I might think that you're doing that as an affront to honesty and truthfulness.

KIA: He attributed Americans' love of guns, hunting, church, family and community as being a negative result of bitterness and anger.

No, he didn't. He attributed Americans' voting largely on issues pertaining to guns, hunting, church, family and community as being a negative result of bitterness and anger with the government for having failed them economically so many times.

But you aren't one to let facts get in the way of your opinion, are you?

paygun: Right out of the park.

Too bad it was over the backstop.

Obama worded everything perfectly - for the private fundraiser in San Fran that was closed to the media, not for the general public that he's trying to hoodwink.

KIA: The key words

Let's look at the whole quote and not just the part taken out of context which paints it in a different light than it was intended.

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that 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."

KIA: The unavoidable implication is if people were not bitter, they would not cling to any of the foregoing. The clear thrust of the statement was to suggest that anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-trade sentiment was a false cover for frustration and bitterness.

Actually, the unavoidable implication is that people who feel they have no recourse with the government may become fixated on one of these issues and it becomes the lens through with they view the government. You can have belief in all of these things without being fixated, "clinging to it" as a way of getting through your feelings of powerlessness because your factory job got moved to Mexico. A lot of people do, though, because it gives them a feeling of control that they, very understandably, have been lacking.

KIA: The unavoidable implication is if people were not bitter, they would not cling to any of the foregoing.

To make it crystal clear, he meant (from context, not from further statements) they would not cling to any of the following as sole issues for their vote.

I will admit that is incorrect. Some still would, but I bet far fewer than currently do.

arbitrary: What he said was true. Calling people bitter is not an insult, unless you are referring to the way they taste.

"You're bitter because you're upset with the government."

"You're bitter...oh and it's because you're a racist, xenophobic, gun nut bible thumper...that is upset with the government."

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same.

This writer sounds bitter.

Crewmannumber6: FTFA: It is, of course, not elitist for candidates to talk about jobs and trade in Ohio and Pennsylvania

Washington is not to blame for Ohio's problems, Columbus is.

Hey now, have some respect. He's been dead for, what, five hundred years?

/of course, Washington's been dead for a while as well.

KIA: Aren't you actually against illegal immigration and favoring expansion of the legal process beyond the one million people per year permitted to enter this nation? How many is enough? All of them? Ten million? Five?

Of course I'm against illegal immigration, but I'm also think our current system for legal immigration is inadequate. I'm not personally sure what the perfect solution to fix the problem is, but I do think we need to figure it out.

DamnYankees: What is this, 1911? Show me an article that says illegal immigration has caused an outbreak of whooping cough recently.

How about a nice scholarly article written by a doctor and providing specific examples:

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

HAHA!

Welcome to the big leagues Obama.

Whoa! Fast ball WAAAAY inside!

Watch your knees Baracky!

JohnnyC: atomsmoosher: Why do people think the government is something we need to have faith in?

Because we pay them to do a job... we should be able to have faith in our employees to do their job and do it to our liking. If we don't, there is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

I don't know if it is particularly clear that Obama means "faith" as in "confidence."

KIA: The exact quote appears to be: "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 key words: bitter, cling, frustrations. The things associated with bitterness, clinging: 1) guns. 2) religion. 3) antipathy to people who aren't like them. 4) anti-immigrant sentiment. 5) anti-trade sentiment. The unavoidable implication is if people were not bitter, they would not cling to any of the foregoing. The clear thrust of the statement was to suggest that anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-trade sentiment was a false cover for frustration and bitterness.

The predicate statement, if you will...

KIA: This brief insight into the New Democrat mindset, where traditional American values are suddenly negatives to be looked down upon, is the shocker.

Despite the fact that you completely misinterpreted the remarks (perhaps due to your own bitterness), your main point doesn't even make sense.

I always hear about these "traditional values of this nation." Pro-religion, pro-family, pro-gun.

But what about the other traditions? What about racist tradition? What about classist tradition? What about anti-labor or anti-art or anti-non-Christian-religion or misogynist tradition? Never hear about those things. Slavery, the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, buying on credit, keeping quiet about wife abuse. Disowning your pregnant daughter. What about blind trust in government when it comes to war? All these anti-government conservatives who keep their guns to protect them against governmental interference sure are happy to support the troops by supporting the very government they claim to distrust.

Apparently, "traditional American values" amounts to what was portrayed on "Father Knows Best." Well, that America is a work of fiction. And it's only been a "tradition" for 50 or 60 years. That's no time at all.

What has always made America great was its LACK of slavish devotion to tradition. Separating church from government, Civil Rights legislation, guaranteeing education and nutrition to all children. These things have made us stronger and better as a civilization.

KIA: The unavoidable implication is if people were not bitter, they would not cling to any of the foregoing. The clear thrust of the statement was to suggest that anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-trade sentiment was a false cover for frustration and bitterness.

No. The implication is that people have a lot of bitterness and they are latching on to single issue votes and chooseing a party that panders to those single issues while doing nothing to improove the prime cause of the bitterness.

For example, Jim just lost his job at the factory and now is short on cash. Jim decides to go hunting and maybe fill the meat portion of his faimly diet with some venison. After hunting on a saturday he visits the church and thanks god for helping him provide for his family. A month later Jim gets a lower paying job as a laborer, money is tigher so jim and his wife have been having arguments more often and he is afraid he is losing her. Jim visits a church sponsored counseling session for married couples to get things back on track. A few months down the road Jim gets let go because the company can hire illegals for less money.

In the next election Jim will see two canidates one who has a strong connection to the church, supports gun rights, and will 'git rid of them damn dirty illegals'.

Obama is saying that he is the other canidate and that he will get Jim his job at the factory back.

Grandmaster Poopypants: What has always made America great was its LACK of slavish devotion to tradition. Separating church from government, Civil Rights legislation, guaranteeing education and nutrition to all children. These things have made us stronger and better as a civilization.

"The Constitution, it's just a tradition."

LikeTheSearchEngine: KIA: The unavoidable implication is if people were not bitter, they would not cling to any of the foregoing.

To make it crystal clear, he meant (from context, not from further statements) they would not cling to any of the following as sole issues for their vote.

I will admit that is incorrect. Some still would, but I bet far fewer than currently do.


You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.



versus

USP .45: arbitrary: What he said was true. Calling people bitter is not an insult, unless you are referring to the way they taste.

"You're bitter because you're upset with the government."

"You're bitter...oh and it's because you're a racist, xenophobic, gun nut bible thumper...that is upset with the government."

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not the same.

Exactly right...
...the first one is what he said, the second is what it was spun into. Just because he said that the result of the bitterness is to vote for politicians who strongly champion single issues, whether it be religion, guns, or pork (that is, bringing home the bacon from the federal gov't for local use), doesn't mean he called them bitter *because* they do it. He was very clear. Extremely. If you read what he said, he said people were "bitter" because the government has screwed them, and that they "cling" to religion and guns as voting issues because of it.

Read this synonym-full sentence, and see if it raises your hackles:
"People are resentful because the government has failed to live up to its promises of economic regrowth time and again, and therefore they hold strongly to guns or religion as voting issues."

/Like describing colors to the blind.

Egoy: Obama is saying that he is the other canidate and that he will get Jim his job at the factory back.

Really? Obama was at a private fundraiser in San Fransisco talking about how much he cares about people that cling to religion and guns, and how he wants to help them? What a guy.

In other news, Obama raised $1.25

So, to summarize thus far:

There are the man's plain words and the link he created as a claim that the bitterness (and there may be bitterness) leads people to "cling" to guns, religion, and certain antipathies, with strong implications that these are Not Good Things.

Then there are the apologists who claim "nuh-uh" "He didn't mean that" or "well, if you change the light and look at it from a certain angle, then it's not that bad."

USP .45: "The Constitution, it's just a tradition."

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. But the framers created the Constitution to be a malleable document, not stuck in tradition, but designed to evolve as the country does.

LikeTheSearchEngine: the first one is what he said, the second is what it was spun into.

You're denying the very existence of the words that came out of his mouth.

Who are you trying to convince?

USP .45:
"You're bitter...oh and it's because you're a racist, xenophobic, gun nut bible thumper...that is upset with the government."

That's not what he said at all.

You people really have no shame, do you?

KIA: Johnny C and The Homer Tax:

Aren't you actually against illegal immigration and favoring expansion of the legal process beyond the one million people per year permitted to enter this nation? How many is enough? All of them? Ten million? Five?

Anyone who qualifies the background check and health screening. Again, if someone wants to come here and work, why should we stop them?

KIA

Loved this comment - you saved my vodak-addled brain from having to elucidate the same..........now I can just make stupid libtard/Grim Reaper jokes. Enjoy your TF.