I disagree. If people are opting to weigh out the relative benefits of choosing one candidate who will be better for them on economic matters versus another who will be better for them on keeping their guns, keeping rights away from the homosexuals, or on a religious issue such as prayer in schools (or being able to keep their bibles period, as was threatened in some of Bush’s re-election materials), I would suggest that a Democratic politician is never going to win the vote of somebody voting on the latter issues.
I certainly wouldn’t want them to change their position on any of those topics, nor do I want leaders who will pander. I’d rather have someone call people out on these matters. I want someone who will publicize that Democrats are demonstrably better on economic issues - that it does make an empirical difference which party is in control of the government - without worrying about offending the whiny ass titty babies.
It’s like Obama’s position on the flag lapel pins - I want someone who is finally going to say "I hear the traditional framework of the debate on this issue, and I come down firmly on the side of ‘Fuck it!’ It’s time to do things differently. "
Or to paraphrase Eddie Murphy, in “48 Hrs”: “There’s a new sheriff in town, and his name is Barack Obama.”
This particular conservative isn’t crying, and I bet a lot of others aren’t either. Actually, we’re crowing. I know what Obama meant but the way he phrased it plays right into the hands of those conservatives who want to paint liberals as irreligious gun-grabbing border-subverting elitists, AND more importantly into the hands of other liberals who want to distinquish themselves from their further-left rivals.
So I’m just happy to sit back & watch the two Democratic contenders so bloody themselves & each other that my man will have a easier way to sail on into office.
The first two points are true, the third is complete bullshit and Obama never said it.
I’ll make it a little more clear. I was saying that I wasn’t convinced that alleged targets of Obama’s remarks would really be as bothered as the GOP and the right wing media wanted them to be.
My God, you’re full of shit. Does this kind of gibberish strike you as clever when you write it?
Himself, and don’t be sad for me. My self-esteem is just fine and the idea that I was fishing for approval with my OP is just bizarre.
So, do you agree that the whole “Obama said you voters are God obsessed, gun fetishes who hate Mexicans! Are you going to take that from him?” meme that has been all over the news (and will be) is, in fact, actually wrong? I fully admit, his statement was politically stupid.
I’m sad to sit back and watch people try to anger and scare the voting public into not voting for a candidate for poor word choice while ignoring the actual issues. And I’m amused to see the 180 degree turn the right can make about their standard for poor word choice in public speaking in a candidate.
That’s a bit harsh. I’m a liberal atheist with no real understanding of guns, and I have no problem crediting non-liberals, religious people, or owners/likers of guns with solid reasoning for doing so. Merely because I disagree, or lack understanding, doesn’t mean I assume that everyone who disagrees with me has zero reasonable standing. I wouldn’t consider myself an exception that proves the rule, either.
Besides, the three aren’t all that equivalent. Political preferences and religious affiliation are matters for which you’d expect some amount of reasoning, whether solid or not. Gun ownership can likewise be a matter of political ideals, or for practical purposes, but it could just be as a hobby, and you pretty much don’t need any reasoning beyond that.
The part I love is that the Clinton News Network decided it was going to run with Hillary’s skewed ridiculous interpretation of these comments. The minute she was attacking Obama CNN was analyzing these “shocking” comments. It infuriates me to no end that this is what passes for political discourse in this country, attacking the potentially less than eloquent words of one candidate instead of addressing what is really going on in this country. If voters are dumb enough to let Hillary tell them when they should be offended, if the people of Pennsylvania are so shallow as to let Obama’s remarks shift them to vote for a liar and/or a warmonger, then they are idiots. If they vote for one or the other ont he issues, fine, but if they vote because they think somehow that Obama is an elitist yet the other candidates “feel their pain” well then it’s no wonder we end up with George W Bush in the White House…because we are collectively morons who would cut off our own noses to spite our faces.
I don’t typically wear anything in my lapel myself - when I am stirred to do so, I generally place in there a small representation of my Navy Achievement Medal. Not a high award by any means, but it is mine, and reminds me of a lot more than just a medal.
But I digress.
Something that made the news a while back is the fact that Obama has been wearing a wristband on the campaign trail honoring a soldier killed in Iraq. McCain has been doing the same thing. Both bracelets were presented to the respective candidates by their families.
I regard that as a nice thing to do, myself, but it certainly isn’t a terrible break from the past - Bob Dole during the Vietnam War wore a POW bracelet and only made the connection years later who was on it when John McCain was elected to Congress.
So you can sit on these message boards and decry these symbols of patriotism (as you do) or you can join the real world where people have decided long ago that they matter. Obama is in this world, and I’m glad that he is.
He seems to have learned a lesson from the last Democratic nominee, who paid insufficient care at one point in his life to symbols like this, never disavowed this act, and paid a heavy political price for such.
Yes, for some on the right, anyway. Hypocrisy knows no political bounderies, sad to say. I can’t stand the feeding frenzy from some of the same folks that will defend slips of the tongue when they come from people they like.
This was, as I said above, simply a poor choice of words, not a statement of personal belief or of campaign direction or vision. Let it go.
“Gun culture” is a huge and diverse thing, and for various reasons it’s not surprising that the white supremacist/neo-nazi groups tend to fall within the gun culture themselves. But keep in mind that they are a small minority, albeit occasionally a high-profile one. I’ve been in the “gun culture” for a long time now, and I’ve never met one of these kooks.
Um, ardent “from my cold dead hands” gun-rights supporter here. I’m also an atheist who’s never felt the slightest inclination towards “twisted religionism,” racism or xenophobia. Please do not conflate those issues. I see the right of the people to bear arms as nothing more or less than a vital check on the power of the state, and I see anybody who wishes to dismantle that right as somebody who is either ignorantly or intentionally pushing authoritarian policy in the name of “safety.” That is why I react so violently to any attempt to ban or regulate firearms.
And given the broad regulations we already have, I fail to see how further gun control legislation can be considered “benign,” especially with certain people and shrill anti-rights groups pushing the “assault weapon” ban again.
Well, fuck you, too. I sure am glad you’re here to tell me what my priorities should be.
People in the “real world” have decided that all kinds of stupid shit matters; while it might be suicide politically to take a stand against them, those of us who aren’t running for office have no need to play along with an appeal to popularity, and to imply that anyone who questions blind flag-waving or doesn’t toe the line as laid out by jingoists is somehow inferior morally to the masses is absurd.
I agree that this is a silly issue. In fact, it isn’t an issue at all.
Still, the press is going to go with it since the candidates are making it an issue. I like Obama’s response to Hillary, saying she’s running around like she’s Annie Oakley or something. I guess she bragged a few days ago about killing a duck back when Bill was Governor of Arkansas. That’s pretty pathetic-- you think you have to boast about having killed something to pander to some voters. Romney did it. Kerry did it, too, last time.
But I think the other thing at play here is that Obama is going to get more press scrutiny now that he’s the front runner. A lot of us have been saying that all along. He got his time in the sun when he was the media darling, and that’s beginning to fade. Also, one of his strengths is supposed to be his oratory skills. It’s not news when Bush slips up in that category, but it is for Obama.
I have - it was usually one or two tables among hundreds, if not a thousand. In other words - a miniscule percentage.
At some shows they got in by pretending to be something else (many gun shows stopped taking tables from those guys). I listened to the guys next to the Klan bitching about these idiots, and the vast majority of the people I observed walked on by.
The swastika stuff is a little different, since some of those booths were the military collectible stuff. I saw a swastika flag, but it was also next to uniforms, belt buckles, etc. from WWII. The flag had been taken by the guy’s father - not exactly a “Go Nazis!” type set-up.
Whenever I see tjis kind of statement, I always wonder if these people really think they’re going to be able to fight off all the combined might of the United States Armed Forces. I think it would be hilarious to see them try.
Also, doesn’t this kind of attitude contain an element of insurgency, anti-Americanism and hostility towards the US military? Why is it that liberals get accused of hating the troops while segments on the right are ammssing weaponry and forming amateur militias for the expressed intent of someday actually engaging in armed conflict with the US military?
Because they envision the government, at that time, being controlled by Godless Commies or World Government types, not by true-blue Americans who value the constitution as they interpret it. They probably expect much of the military to be on their side!
For something close to the thousandth time, the military is composed of citizens. If it came down to armed resistance the military would fragment just like the citizenry would. So, how do those odds look now?
No, it reflects the idea that the government is, in theory, ours, and should the powers that be try to abrogate our rights it is just to remove them. That is what a revolution is all about.
And I don’t know why the “liberals” get accused of “hating the troops”. Probably because the people that say it use the same sort of bullshit rhetoric that you’ve been using this whole thread.
I think Obama’s comments were politically imprudent, but don’t have enough real content to be definitively “true” or “false.” In particular, I think it was a weak connection to say that if people in small towns are resentful, it’s because of the last 25 years. The picture he paints of small town America is exactly what you’d find in the works of Willa Cather or William Faulkner.
However, obviously McCain and Clinton are just exploiting it, and pandering to those same people they say he disrespected.
In the end, it’s another non-issue. Whether it’s a non-issue that’ll destroy him, the way non-issues have destroyed other candidates, remains to be seen. Obviously nothing he says now will be considered adequate as an explanation or sufficient as an apology by his political opponents, but nobody should mistake this for relevant political dialogue.