El_Dan: Simplest Quantum System Conceivable: mediaho: elchip: He said that because of their bitterness they cling to guns and religion and hatred for people who aren't like them, like minorities and immigrants and gays. THAT'S what the fuss is over.

I guess there must be another reason that they hate minorities, immigrants and gays, unless they're trying to argue that they don't which is just silly.

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?

Sodomy and atheism, apparently.


hmmmm...sodomy and atheism...Now there's a campaign I can get behind!!!

/but not in front of

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

Yeah, the thing is... this statement wasn't really meant as a platform piece that was directed to everyone. This quote is actually a reply to a campaigner that was going to be going to PA and they wanted to know better what they should do or expect. So it isn't surprising that the context of this and the overall meaning is hard to understand for some people. It would be like if you asked me a question and I answered your question then someone took part of my answer and twisted into a blanket statement by completely removing the context of what you and I were talking about.

KIA: 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."

Where are the "strong implications that these are not good things?"

The way I read it, he was strongly implying that these are things that have nothing to do with the reason that they are bitter in the first place.

LikeTheSearchEngine: He was very clear. Extremely. If you read what he said

And therein lies the problem.

These idiots make it crystal clear which sources they get their news from. Fox News and AM radio pundits. Period. They even repeat their completely inaccurate summaries verbatim. That kind of handjobbery is currency like gold in the the right-wing incestuous echo chamber. You can see them get visibly upset when their outright lies don't fly around here.

Grandmaster Poopypants: 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.

Like in a post 9/11 world right?

Oh, I see, you want some parts to evolve, but some parts to stay rooted.

KIA: 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.


The question was roughly "why are people in small-town PA not getting behind your campaign?" the list of things there represents issues people are voting on that would not favor him.
It's Obama the political strategist. Shocking he's not all Hopey and Changey 24/7. Sometimes he's just an astute observer.

The Homer Tax: You people really have no shame, do you?

Us bitter white rednecks?

Yeah, you're voting Obama alright.

KIA: 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."

You are claiming implications and then saying that we are stretching the truth? Wow. The only angle we are looking it it from are the words that come out of his mouth. You are the one looking at things through a filter.

4th Yorkshireman of the Apocalypse: 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.

Thank you very much - deeply appreciated!

USP .45: 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."

I have to give you a Class II Non-Sequitur Award for that. It almost seems to make sense as a retort, until you think about it. Then you realize, it has nothing at all to do with what he was saying.

I assume you were trying to imply that instead of a period after "slavish devotion to tradition." that he had put a ", such as" instead. Unfortunately, he was holding up things in the constitution and the amendments as good things which America is founded on, rather than tradition.

Unless you're trying to agree with him, in which case, you've really confused me.

KIA: Then there are the anti-Obama folks 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 worse than it literally was."

Fixed that for ya...

I think you want to take it in a negative light and that is why you see it that way. If you took it for just what he said, you wouldn't be placing the negative connotation into it.

By the way... you can hear for yourself his clarification ^{(^)}

Maybe you can twist his clarification to suit your desire to turn him into a bad guy.

LikeTheSearchEngine: Unfortunately, he was holding up things in the constitution and the amendments as good things which America is founded on

But those things are malleable to fit our post-9/11, post-industrial, post-heath care, world.

USP .45: The Homer Tax: You people really have no shame, do you?

Us bitter white rednecks?

Yeah, you're voting Obama alright.

I never said anything of the sort. Of course, it's easier to argue against a characterization of what I said than what I actually said. Huh, just like you are doing with the Obama comments. Funny how that works out, eh?

USP .45: Us bitter white rednecks?

Um... I think he was talking about the people who come to threads like this to twist the meaning of what Obama said.

So this 'play the victim' thing... how's it workin' out for ya?

The Homer Tax: Where are the "strong implications that these are not good things?"

Egoy: You are claiming implications and then saying that we are stretching the truth? Wow. The only angle we are looking it it from are the words that come out of his mouth. You are the one looking at things through a filter.

Oh, okay. I didn't understand. What Obama was saying was that you should - everyone should -

a) adopt anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-trade sentiment, and antipathy to people who aren't like them; and
b) cling to guns and religion.

because the foregoing are examples of good behavior or are otherwise commendable. No? Then he must have been saying only bitter, frustrated people engage in that type of behavior. No? He was saying that only people in small towns where jobs have left and gone abroad can harbor those beliefs? No? Well, was he saying that that type of behavoir is favored by him and his party? No?

Well, WTF then? I'm tired of trying to come up with innocent explanations. You folks give me an innocent explanation.

JohnnyC: Maybe you can twist his clarification to suit your desire to turn him into a bad guy.

If it was actually a clarification, and not an entirely different comment, he would have rephrased what he already said as many of you have done countless times while using "guns" and "reglion" etc as examples.

JohnnyC: So this 'play the victim' thing... how's it workin' out for ya?

I'm not a victim, I'm a survivor.

The Homer Tax: Where are the "strong implications that these are not good things?"

Egoy: You are claiming implications and then saying that we are stretching the truth? Wow. The only angle we are looking it it from are the words that come out of his mouth. You are the one looking at things through a filter.

Oh, okay. I didn't understand. What Obama was saying was that you should - everyone should -

a) adopt anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-trade sentiment, and antipathy to people who aren't like them; and
b) cling to guns and religion.

because the foregoing are examples of good behavior or are otherwise commendable. No? Then he must have been saying only bitter, frustrated people engage in that type of behavior. No? He was saying that only people in small towns where jobs have left and gone abroad can harbor those beliefs? No? Well, was he saying that that type of behavoir is favored by him and his party? No?

Well, WTF then? I'm tired of trying to come up an explanation of how Obama was doing anything other than ridiculing those viewpoints or casting those viewpoints in a negative light.

USP .45: If it was actually a clarification, and not an entirely different comment, he would have rephrased what he already said as many of you have done countless times while using "guns" and "reglion" etc as examples.

You don't have to repeat the same words to make a clarification... come on now. And clarify he did. In plain words... why are you pretending he didn't? I think it's because you wish he said the things you're mad about or perhaps you don't have the capacity to admit that you were wrong about how you took his original statement so therefor his clarification wasn't a clarification because it didn't match how you originally interpreted his words.

mediaho: These idiots make it crystal clear which sources they get their news from. Fox News and AM radio pundits. Period. They even repeat their completely inaccurate summaries verbatim. That kind of handjobbery is currency like gold in the the right-wing incestuous echo chamber. You can see them get visibly upset when their outright lies don't fly around here.

This. Nail on the head.

KIA: Well, WTF then? I'm tired of trying to come up with innocent explanations. You folks give me an innocent explanation.

We have already explained his comments multiple times in this thread.

JohnnyC: You don't have to repeat the same words to make a clarification

No, I suppose you don't, but no one will believe that you were actually clarifying a previous statement.

Obama, the orator, should know this.

USP .45: I'm not a victim, I'm a survivor.

Then what's with the injecting "white redneck" thing into something someone didn't say or imply? Seems to me you were trying to inject a racial slur into someone's comment and that being an Obama supporter means you don't like white people or rural folks.

To me... you were playing the victim.

KIA: The Homer Tax: Where are the "strong implications that these are not good things?"

Egoy: You are claiming implications and then saying that we are stretching the truth? Wow. The only angle we are looking it it from are the words that come out of his mouth. You are the one looking at things through a filter.

Oh, okay. I didn't understand. What Obama was saying was that you should - everyone should -

a) adopt anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-trade sentiment, and antipathy to people who aren't like them; and
b) cling to guns and religion.

because the foregoing are examples of good behavior or are otherwise commendable. No? Then he must have been saying only bitter, frustrated people engage in that type of behavior. No? He was saying that only people in small towns where jobs have left and gone abroad can harbor those beliefs? No? Well, was he saying that that type of behavoir is favored by him and his party? No?

Well, WTF then? I'm tired of trying to come up with innocent explanations. You folks give me an innocent explanation.

The way I interpreted it, he was saying that When people lose their jobs and are hit hard economically, they seek solace in wedge issues that have nothing to do with the reasons they were hit hard economically. In the end, if they vote on those wedge issues, all they do is perpetuate the reason they're upset in the first place - the economy sucks and they don't have a job.

I didn't read it as a qualitative statement on the wedge issues, just that the wedge issues acted as a distraction from the real issues.

But then again, I've never been the type to seek out reasons to be offended. It always struck me as so...liberal.

USP .45: Oh, I see, you want some parts to evolve, but some parts to stay rooted.

That's right. Isn't that true of everyone? I want the negative traditions to evolve, and the positive ones to stay rooted. But in the context of this thread "traditional american values" was narrowly defined to include religion, guns, and family... and each of those is also very narrowly defined. I fail to see how evolving towards "liberty and justice to all" is a negative. Or don't pledges actually mean anything in your worldview?

KIA:

Oh, okay. I didn't understand. What Obama was saying was that you should - everyone should -

a) adopt anti-immigrant sentiment, anti-trade sentiment, and antipathy to people who aren't like them; and
b) cling to guns and religion.

because the foregoing are examples of good behavior or are otherwise commendable. No? Then he must have been saying only bitter, frustrated people engage in that type of behavior. No? He was saying that only people in small towns where jobs have left and gone abroad can harbor those beliefs? No? Well, was he saying that that type of behavoir is favored by him and his party? No?

Well, WTF then? I'm tired of trying to come up an explanation of how Obama was doing anything other than ridiculing those viewpoints or casting those viewpoints in a negative light.

Like I said a few minutes ago.

The question was roughly "why are people in small-town PA not getting behind your campaign?" the list of things there represents issues people are voting on that would not favor him. This is the "negative light" he was describing them in.

It's Obama the political strategist, when he didn't think he was being recorded. Shocking he's not all Hopey and Changey 24/7. Sometimes he's just an astute observer.

USP .45: No, I suppose you don't, but no one will believe that you were actually clarifying a previous statement.

News Flash... he clarified his statement. It was pretty much what I thought he meant in the first place.

Not News.... You thought he said something mean spirited against "white rednecks" (your words.. not mine or his) and then choose to ignore his clarification because it didn't fit how you originally interpreted his words.

I was trying to help you get it, but you seem to be intentionally not getting it.

Grandmaster Poopypants: That's right. Isn't that true of everyone? I want the negative traditions to evolve, and the positive ones to stay rooted

What inherently negative traditions exist in the Constitution?

This question is of course a courtesy, as the Constitution was a series of posits that were presumed true rather than "positive" or "negative."

USP .45: 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?

LikeTheSearchEngine: "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."

You are very obviously being disingenuous, and you are doing the same thing to the people who point this out as you are to Obama: taking a single snippet of a larger idea, making it out to be the whole of the statement, and then applying the out-of-context logic to it that you want to apply.

On the very small off chance that you are doing this in good faith, let me hold a short reading comprehension tutorial:
Reading Selection; Difficulty - 8th Grade (this one is a little easier than my previous comprehension tutorial (pops, go to 2008-03-28 03:01:07 PM)):

Obama: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.

First, to fully understand the piece, we need to know that the statement is a direct response to a question, which was, to paraphrase: "Why are people in Pennsylvania not voting for your campaign?"

Without this context, the statement is in danger of being meaningless when analysis is applied to it.

In this piece, you can see that the author puts emphasis on the issue which he believes is the most important issue: jobs and economic health/growth. He explains that the government has been making empty promises to small towns that the economy will improve and the town will have job growth and prosperity. When the government fails to deliver, he continues, the people grow angry and mistrustful of the government.

The author then ends this brief selection by explaining how people have become "bitter" and that they "cling" to religion, guns, anti-immigration, and anti-trade issues. This section is the only part of the piece which requires interpretation. Taken alone, there are two obvious interpretations. Based on the sentence structure, the incorrect one is: "Religious and gun-rights people are bitter." The easiest and most reasonable one is: "People who are bitter tend to cling to their religion and their guns."

However, when you take the statement in context, by considering that the author is answering a question about PA voting habits, is discussing the governmental failure to keep its promises to the people and the fact that people are becoming bitter *because* of that, it becomes clear that the author is saying that people who are angry and resentful of the government for failing to spur on economic growth in their areas have instead turned to voting for politicians based on narrow issues such as religion, guns, and immigration.

Obama
Due to many of the full-time jobs created by corporations being sedentary in nature and the food service industry being more interested in saving money by providing cheap, fatty foods to their customers, more and more Americans are starting to suffer from obesity.

Ameritards
Bah Gawd! Obama called us FAT!

You are very obviously being disingenuous, and you are doing the same thing to the people who point this out as you are to Obama: taking a single snippet of a larger idea, making it out to be the whole of the statement, and then applying the out-of-context logic to it that you want to apply.

And yet you probably think McCain wants 1000 years of war in Iraq.

I have no time for intellectual frauds.

However, when you take the statement in context, by considering that the author is answering a question about PA voting habits, is discussing the governmental failure to keep its promises to the people and the fact that people are becoming bitter *because* of that, it becomes clear that the author is saying that people who are angry and resentful of the government for failing to spur on economic growth in their areas have instead turned to voting for politicians based on narrow issues such as religion, guns, and immigration.

...the insinuation (conservatively) being that said issues aren't worthy of a vote. Totally busted.

COROLLARY

When a right-wing talking head tells you the government is screwing you over, they're just looking out for the common man.

When a left-wing Presidential candidate is telling you the government is screwing you over, they're an ivory tower elitist.

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Obama
Due to many of the full-time jobs created by corporations being sedentary in nature and the food service industry being more interested in saving money by providing cheap, fatty foods to their customers, more and more Americans are starting to suffer from obesity.

Calling people fat? No. I think of this:



Down with corporations! Yay manual labor! Gotta save the agro by dividing it amongst the People!

USP .45: What inherently negative traditions exist in the Constitution?

This question is of course a courtesy, as the Constitution was a series of posits that were presumed true rather than "positive" or "negative."

Well, I would say Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons is inherently negative, but the issue is tradition. You brought the Constitution into the discussion. What was your point again?

Grandmaster Poopypants: Well, I would say Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons is inherently negative, but the issue is tradition. You brought the Constitution into the discussion. What was your point again?

Hey liar, that was modified by the 14th Amendment, which is part of the Constitution.

USP .45: And yet you probably think McCain wants 1000 years of war in Iraq.

I have no time for intellectual frauds.

Wait a sec man... why is it that when you are called out, you make some implication against the person that they plainly didn't say or even remotely imply? And then you call him an intellectual fraud?

Sounds to me like you think you have all the answers and your opinion is not subject to be questioned.

Here's a hint... your opinion is FUBAR.

USP .45: Hey liar, that was modified by the 14th Amendment, which is part of the Constitution.

Wow, you're the one who called the Constitution a tradition (it isn't) and called it infallible (it isn't). The original point, I believe, is that tradition for the sake of tradition is bad. Doing something a certain way for the sole reason of "we've always done it this way - it's a tradition" is bad for progress.

JohnnyC: Here's a hint... your opinion is FUBAR.

Opinion? I dare say that correctly interpreting the syntax of a person's words is not "opinion."

mediaho: Wow, you're the one who called the Constitution a tradition (it isn't) and called it infallible (it isn't).

That was mockery.

The original point, I believe, is that tradition for the sake of tradition is bad. Doing something a certain way for the sole reason of "we've always done it this way - it's a tradition" is bad for progress.

I agree.

USP .45:
Down with corporations! Yay manual labor! Gotta save the agro by dividing it amongst the People!

The Founding Fathers hated corporations. Adam Smith hated corporations.

Traitors to the American People support them. Like you.

USP .45: Opinion? I dare say that correctly interpreting the syntax of a person's words is not "opinion."

So now you're even denying that your opinion is an opinion and is instead fact. hahahahahaha... I'm sorry... that is comedy gold. :)

USP .45: You are very obviously being disingenuous, and you are doing the same thing to the people who point this out as you are to Obama: taking a single snippet of a larger idea, making it out to be the whole of the statement, and then applying the out-of-context logic to it that you want to apply.

And yet you probably think McCain wants 1000 years of war in Iraq.

I have no time for intellectual frauds.


As to the 1000 years in Iraq thing: first, not the issue at hand, way to change the subject. I'll take it as confirmation that you are being intentionally disingenuous. It might surprise you to learn that, though I dislike Hillary (and therefore am strongly supporting Obama), when it comes to the general election, I plan to vote on the ISSUES, and go with the candidate I think least likely to bankrupt the country. Currently, all the candidates seem equally likely to me. I believe that McCain would possibly (within foreseeable circumstances) escalate the war into Iran, which is a negative to me, though. Thanks for outing yourself as a bigot, though.

Back on topic:


However, when you take the statement in context, by considering that the author is answering a question about PA voting habits, is discussing the governmental failure to keep its promises to the people and the fact that people are becoming bitter *because* of that, it becomes clear that the author is saying that people who are angry and resentful of the government for failing to spur on economic growth in their areas have instead turned to voting for politicians based on narrow issues such as religion, guns, and immigration.

...the insinuation (conservatively) being that said issues aren't worthy of a vote. Totally busted.

No, you misunderstand. (...and I must carefully restrain from the ad hom.) The whole point (rather than insinuation, though nice loaded word choice), is that a) the reason that Obama is not doing better in PA is because these issues are not his strongest and rural PA is making them the central issues, and b) he thinks that the economy is important, and he knows that the economy is very important to rural Pennsylvanians, but he also knows that they don't trust the government to fix it so they don't vote on it.

/And you still consistently refuse to refute the majority of what I am saying... am I to assume that you agree?
//I may be leaning Obama in the general, but I haven't made up my mind by any stretch of the imagination.

JohnnyC: So now you're even denying that your opinion is an opinion and is instead fact.

Obama either said something, or he didn't. Opinion is irrelevant...unless of course Obama is speaking in poetry and we should be looking for layered themes - wait, now it all makes sense.

USP .45: Opinion? I dare say that correctly interpreting the syntax of a person's words is not "opinion."

You would do well to remember that when reading my posts :P

LikeTheSearchEngine: The whole point (rather than insinuation, though nice loaded word choice), is that a) the reason that Obama is not doing better in PA is because these issues are not his strongest and rural PA is making them the central issues, and b) he thinks that the economy is important, and he knows that the economy is very important to rural Pennsylvanians, but he also knows that they don't trust the government to fix it so they don't vote on it

The insinuation remains: In Obama's opinion rural PA should be voting on the economy and not take anything else into consideration (such as guns, religion, immigration, etc), because the nanosecond they do, they won't vote for Obama.

Obama was talking about what is important to him and his strategy. There is simply no way to convince me that he was speaking on behalf of rural PA to a closed fundraising group in San Fransisco - they don't give a shiat about PA, they care about strategy.

USP .45: Down with corporations! Yay manual labor! Gotta save the agro by dividing it amongst the People!

So you're a communist!

USP .45: The insinuation remains: In Obama's opinion rural PA should be voting on the economy and not take anything else into consideration (such as guns, religion, immigration, etc), because the nanosecond they do, they won't vote for Obama.

Obama was talking about what is important to him and his strategy. There is simply no way to convince me that he was speaking on behalf of rural PA to a closed fundraising group in San Fransisco - they don't give a shiat about PA, they care about strategy.

Exactly right...
...of course Obama wishes they would trust him to make the economy better, because then they would vote for him. They won't though, because they distrust the government and politicians to do anything better for the economy. Instead, they are voting on issues which don't favor him (or Hillary, but she will say what they want to hear, rather than maintaining a consistent platform like Obama). His whole strategy is to convince Pennsylvanians that he WILL change the economy for the better, because he is running on the "I'm only beholden to the voters, not the lobbyists" platform. He was explaining this. He was not saying that bitter people tend to be religious, anti-immigrant gun-nuts.

Why would I try to convince you he was speaking on behalf of PA to SF? What would be the point in that? He was honestly answering a question. He was speaking about small towns and inner cities in general, and in no negative light whatsoever, despite what the pundits are saying.

/You seem to keep moving the goalposts?

elchip: TheNewJesus: I guess I still don't "get it"

He said people in small towns are bitter? Thats it? wtf?

Someone 'splain to me... please?

He said that because of their bitterness they cling to guns and religion and hatred for people who aren't like them, like minorities and immigrants and gays. THAT'S what the fuss is over.

Well, are you saying that they cling to guns and religion and hate minorities immigrants and gays for other, less cheritable reasons? Because they do all those things, not all of them of course, but most small towns do at least one (ESPECIALLY religion, good god save me from small town churches).

Obama, it seems to me, was making an excuse for the backwards actions of certain rural Americans, not accusing them of those actions. He should have said "Those that are bigotted, hateful. . . " but he didn't. This controversy is like the huff about Kerry supposedly calling the troops stupid. That was, of course, in no way what his comment meant, he just phrased it badly.

USP .45: Hey liar, that was modified by the 14th Amendment, which is part of the Constitution.

I didn't lie. That section is in the Constitution, and was inherently negative, so it was modified by the 14th Amendment. Thank you for proving my point.