Obama and small town America

[The_Hammer]

Obamas points are valid and make sense. His problem is that A) he's too honest and talks about reality. B) People don't want to believe that the way they think is fucked up.

When bad shit goes down and something effects you directly by which you have no control over it, the general thing that happens is that you attach yourself to things that "can't" (for the most part) be taken away ie guns (or the desire to have them), religion, racial identity, geographic location, pride etc. Things that exist in the abstract (except for guns and where you live obviously). Why do people do that? Because the real stuff that they had is gone and they quite literally have nothing left to cling to. It sounds condescending only if you don't want to realize it.

Some people like to attach themselve to those aforementioned things just because it makes them feel comfortable, despite the fact that they completely lack any utility (except for maybe guns or geographic location). And even when something has inherent utility, its utility is not the reason that people attach themselves to things. They do because the "like" it and they feel strongly about it.

 

[The_Hammer]

In addition the audience that he was speaking to were a bunch of pricky rich people who probably believe "Teh poorz r teh stupidz". His argument had validity, though he probably emphasized it more for his audience for the benefit of Pennsylvanians. If he didn't make them sound like dumb yokels, he wouldn't get more money, thus have a lower chance to win the presidency and acutally help them.

This article is rather good (it's an opinion but a solid one). It also has his full speech.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html

 

[Diuretic]

From what I read on American-based forums it sounds like he's right. I wouldn't have to go too far in my own country though to hear exactly the same opinions being expressed.

Ordinary people are doing it tough and they want answers. They aren't getting any. And as in any threatening situation it's back to basic beliefs for them, in an effort to find stability. It's not solely an American phenomenon (although you probably don't give a rat's about that), it's as if there are huge changes happening that we are all aware off but can't quite work out the consequences for us.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This is such a phoney non issue that it will come back to bite anyone who tries to make a big deal out of it.

I tend to agree. Obama is busy explaining what he meant. I think Clinton is going to get bit on this tac.

I did not take the comment as a negative one, but rather one explaining a point of view. THERE are people out there as he has described and if they decide Hillary is plyaing them it will back fire on her.

McCain has the time to see if this argument works or not so it won't hurt him as much if it back fires.

 

[Foxfyre]

You were talking construction. But there is more than one kind of industry. And, frankly, manufacturing was always more important to our economy. I'm afraid I also have no issues with the people who do our gardening, take care of our kids and pick our vegetables and fruits. It's not that I'm not mindful of your concerns, but the whole "oh my goodness, the illegals are coming" mentality escapes me. I do think though that it's time for people's wages to be living wages. But that requires government intervention.

My immediate business as well as my immediate former vocation put me on the front lines to see first hand the effects of illegal immigration in this area and, for the most part, those effects are all negative. I have no problem with people from Mexico or anywhere else coming here to work so long as they obey the law which should require them adhere to the same rules and processes as are required of American citizens. Artificially depressed wages from people who have no stake or interest in a strong America do harm the economy in an area, and if such should be prevalent, will harm the country as a whole. One-size-fits-all government intervention is generally also less productive and beneficial than results accomplished through free market principles.

Racism will never be elminated unless we educate our children about tolerance. But every time that is discussed, the right gets insane and says their children are being corrupted. I also disagree with you about Obama. I think that's something that's been assigned to him. No one becomes editor of Harvard Law Review by way of affirmative action.

Children are not born racist and, left to themselves, demonstrate no racism whatsoever. They are taught racism by adults who a) see other people as victims or disadvantaged by virtue of their race or b) see other people as inferior by virtue of their race or c) see other people as undesirable by virtue of their race. In my opinion, category "C" exists only in very small pockets in this country and is generally soundly condemned by the whole. Categories "A" and "B" are perpetuated either by a small number of opportunistic minorities and/or by people who see minorities as 'different' and incapable of self determination without 'whitey's' help. Both are equally destructive in solving the problem.

I believe you are well intentioned in your perspective of 'tolerance' but I see that as unintended condescension. I think the only solution is not 'tolerance' but recognition of everybody as people capable of making choices to further their own goals and dreams and that should be acknowledged.

What's an environmental wacko? Someone who believes we need to reduce our carbon footprint in order to try to stem climate change? I'm afraid the argument that people live badly where there is poverty is a specious one. Although, I believe we're going to have to deal with that issue, too.

An environmental wacko is somebody who has made environmentalism a religion that is devoid of common sense or practical application. The advocates feel justified forcing their views on all and holding in contempt or punishing to the max all 'sinners'.

Otherwise, I think most people are passionately devoted to clean soil, clean water, clean air and are already willing to or can be persuaded to do what is reasonable and practical to accomplish that.

If you have spent any time among truly impoverished people--I have--you will understand what I say about their concentration on survival taking precedence over any concern for pollution or preservation of their environment. But those who achieve more prosperity are mostly no longer resigned to squalor or ugliness and demand more pleasing surroundings. Further they have the ability to adopt and effect policies that help us all to not deliberately or inadvertently damage our environment.

Although I'm fairly sure we arrive at separate conclusions.

But nice discussing these issues with you.

Separate conclusions probably. Heck, I haven't found anybody yet that I agree with 100% of the time. But I agree that it has been pleasant having a cordial discussion even when we disagree.

 

[William Joyce]

What Obama and jillian mean to say is that small town folks, white Pennsylvanians, religious people, working people and gun owners are white supremacist.

The problem with this attitude is two-fold. First, it's pretty rich for liberals, blacks, halfsies from Harvard, Jews etc. to denounce "racism" and "intolerance" and "fear of other" while doing exactly the same thing themselves to those THEY don't like. With a single hateful swipe, Obama has tarred 90 percent of white America as a bunch of gun-toting, bible-thumping bigots. Even if true, how can these folks claim to be so hurt by 'stereotyping' if they take such pleasure in doing it themselves? Second, the attitude reveals what many whites know in their bones but don't really articulate well, and that is that the American liberal elite (which has the power) hates their guts. There is really no other rational conclusion given the direction of our ship of state for the past 50 years. There's a limit to how open you can be with your hatred before the target of your hate (even when thick-headed whites) starts to get it. And return the favor by not voting for you. You know? It's like a wife-beater being surprised that his wife either divorces him or shoots him. Well, asshole, that's what happens. Much of the traditional American electorate in my view is like a beaten wife. I mean, look at how fucking pathetic the Republicans are: useless wars, overspending, open borders, no law and order, traditional values shat upon... but we somehow see that as better than the Obama wing of the Democrats, and we could be right.

 

[jillian]

What Obama and jillian mean to say is that small town folks, white Pennsylvanians, religious people, working people and gun owners are white supremacist.

don't put words in my mouth, kkk'er.... nothing he said was racial at all.

but leave it to the white supremacist to misrepresent it.

 

[jreeves]

I grew up in small town Ohio and I think there is something to this, but he is probably over-generalizing the effects of job loss and poor economic conditions on a lot of people in a lot of communities.

It's another example of Obama using stereotypes to explain complex problems.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Xenophobic in his references to guns and religion. These aren't issues that are to be overcome. I've got a suspicion though that the reverend has instilled his viewpoints as such and we are seeing it being manifested through Obama's words, no matter how subtle he tries to portray it.

 

[Annie]

don't put words in my mouth, kkk'er.... nothing he said was racial at all.

but leave it to the white supremacist to misrepresent it.

I don't know Jillian, he said that they are anti-immigration, which is way beyond anti-illegal immigration. He said this at the Getty Museum, private party required to be elite considering the donations.

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that the current 'elite' positions on gun laws, religion, diversity are more like Europeans? Consider how he characterized those 'rubes.' Sounds like he is calling them gun toting, zealots, fearful of immigrants, and free trade.

Not good.

 

[William Joyce]

don't put words in my mouth, kkk'er.... nothing he said was racial at all.

Hey, when guys on the right thunder about "New York and Hollywood", they're basically talking about Jews. And I'd admit it.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

For all the cave dwellin, gun totin folks like myself, I've taken the liberty of ordering nose rings and spears for everyone. I'll need sizes and personal engraved messages for the nose rings by Thursday.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

don't put words in my mouth, kkk'er.... nothing he said was racial at all.

but leave it to the white supremacist to misrepresent it.

I agree Jillian. I do not think his remarks had anything at all to do with Race. He did not mean it in a derogatory manner either. I still do not see how what he said is so bad. It is most likely true and he has clarified it.

 

[William Joyce]

I agree Jillian. I do not think his remarks had anything at all to do with Race. He did not mean it in a derogatory manner either. I still do not see how what he said is so bad. It is most likely true and he has clarified it.

Right. He was talking about those Lancaster County blacks who cling to their guns, Bibles and anti-immigrant views, and who just -- dammit! -- won't vote for Obama.

 

[jillian]

Right. He was talking about the inner-city blacks who cling to their guns, Bibles and anti-immigrant views, and who just -- dammit! -- won't vote for Obama.

Not at all... and, frankly, he gets about 80% of the black vote, so not only are you wrong, you're making stuff up out of whole cloth.

But nothing new there.

 

[Gunny]

I understand what you're saying. But I think you have to understand, to most of us left-leaners (and I include myself among them, obviously) it's about priorities. We really don't *get* the whole gun culture thing. Nor do most of us, I'd guess, understand religion as a driving force for political belief (since we're pretty don't care what people believe as long as they don't force it on us). I include myself there too. I have no particular issues with gun owners or religious folk, but suppose in terms of priorities, I and, if I can speak for others on the left, move those things waaaaaaaaaaaaaay further down the food chain. I'd have probably focused on the other issues if I were him, but I guess I'm more of his natural audience than you would be.

Final note: No question there are some on the left who do hate guns and religion, but most don't... and the ones that do are goofy, too.

The only place those things are at the top of the food chain is in the liberal mind. You're right ... you don't understand.

Religion is a driving force in life, not politics, and those people, just as you do, want their elected officials to represent THEIR values. Who doesn't? Surely every member of a this board wants just that.

The problem is when people start thinking they know what's best for others. And before you even say it, you on the left are every bit as guilty of it as those on the right that do it.

It isn't that you want something better than these people. You want something different. And right now, I don't see either side offering a damned thing that's better. All I see from BOTH sides is big government interfering in every facet of our lives, taxing the hell out of us to support their agendas, just flat wasting that money after they get it ....

You can bet your butt I cherish my right to own firearms. That doesn't make it #1 on the priority list. It's a Constitutional Right and I don't like ANY of my Constitutional Rights beign screwed with. Do you?

 

[jillian]

The only place those things are at the top of the food chain is in the liberal mind. You're right ... you don't understand.

Religion is a driving force in life, not politics, and those people, just as you do, want their elected officials to represent THEIR values. Who doesn't? Surely every member of a this board wants just that.

The problem is when people start thinking they know what's best for others. And before you even say it, you on the left are every bit as guilty of it as those on the right that do it.

It isn't that you want something better than these people. You want something different. And right now, I don't see either side offering a damned thing that's better. All I see from BOTH sides is big government interfering in every facet of our lives, taxing the hell out of us to support their agendas, just flat wasting that money after they get it ....

You can bet your butt I cherish my right to own firearms. That doesn't make it #1 on the priority list. It's a Constitutional Right and I don't like ANY of my Constitutional Rights beign screwed with. Do you?

Yeah, yeah, yeah... .guns, guns, guns. Not being wiretapped without a warrant is a constitutional right, too. And THAT doesn't trouble the right. Terrifies me... but it's all good to go with the "we <3 our guns" crowd because it was done by a repub admin.

And THAT'S what I mean by priorities. Depends what gores your ox.

And please tell me again how opposed to government intervention the right is... unless of course it has to do with controlling our bodies or the substances people might choose to ingest or our life partners.. Then government intervention good... ;oS

 

[Adam's Apple]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402450.html

Another interpretation of Obama’s remarks, which probably best reflects the intent of his descriptive words spoken to wealthy liberal “elites” who delight in looking down their noses at people who haven’t had the opportunities/ advantages that they have had and who don't share their "intellectual capacities".

I doubt that blue-color, Reagan Democrats across America will easily forget Obama’s “bitter” words. The real Obama is becoming more transparent each day that this campaign continues.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obama's gaffe probably won't be a huge factor in the final opinion of him as people go to the polls to vote. Those who have already decided on him as their Messiah and champion don't care what he says. Those still on the fence probably won't be swayed by one ill advised metaphor.

But while we are sitting here bitterly reading our Bibles and cleaning our guns, those of us who grew up in small towns may consciously or unconsciously add that gaffe to a growing body of evidence about what this man may be all about. And that evidence is increasingly revealing a man who may hold a view of the world unacceptable to small town America as well as many others.

 

[ReillyT]

Another interpretation of Obama’s remarks, which probably best reflects the intent of his descriptive words spoken to wealthy liberal “elites” who delight in looking down their noses at people who haven’t had the opportunities/ advantages that they have had and who don't share their "intellectual capacities".

What exactly is it that make Obama an "elite?" The term is obviously meant perjoratively. He is a black man who grew up middle-class in Hawaii. That doesn't seem like what one would consider an elite.

Is it because he makes a decent amount of money? John McCain and his wife, and Hillary Clinton and her husband are both worth far more.

Is it because he is a Senator? Elected office in and of itself seems to be a poor basis for calling someone an "elite."

Is it because he is highly educated? Since when should that be considered distasteful.

The only reason that I can discern for why people are suddenly referring to him as an "elite" is because he is liberal and said something they disagree with. However, that would make "elite" a rather large group and rob the term of all but its perjorative meaning. Why not just call him a "liberal," as that is really the objectionable part of him?