Obama comment re guns and religion

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
Elitist as Hillary?

puh-leeze...I want Hillary's god-damn life when I'm given 15million dollars via partnership in the Cayman Islands.

Obama was raised by a single mother and he's the elitist. What-EVER!

You are talking about the Clinton's most recent adult economic situation. Let's compare apples to apples.

I don't believe the average American can hope for a close friend, wealthy donor/slum lord's wife to buy a $600,000 parcel of land next to their million dollar home and sell it at a minimal price to them just because the sellers refused to sell the house to them without the parcel of land.

Obama is a privileged and by his statements elitist.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Just for the record, I'm going to come out and say this. Nothing against Obama, but his statements come off being elitist. He has no real concept on how to relate to the poor. Being raised by a single parent doesn't automatically entitle him to this demographic, nor does the fact that his wife was struggling to pay off student loans. There are people with six-figure salaries right now that are still struggling to pay Sallie Mae!

No, we're talking about POOR. People who can't even afford to go to college, nevermind pay for a student loan. People who are forced to go to school where the education system is so below par and their living conditions are so bad that students don't even finish. People who struggle to keep the heat & lights on in their homes. Hell, people who have to worry about keeping a roof over your head or even a warm place to sleep altogether! You could have sympathy for people in these conditions, but unless you lived it you can't relate to it. And no, working community service to help out the homeless or the misfortunate doesn't count because at the end of the day you get to go home and live the lifestyle that poor people dream of living. It helps you to develop sympathy for these people and maybe helps you focus on policies that can help them. But to say that you truly understand and relate is just ignorant.
 

hotbtminla

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Posts
1,690
Media
8
Likes
3,153
Points
468
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I've just discovered that Trinity is a walking, talking Clinton talking point. There is no point in debating with her.

Indeed. I posted the following Trinity analysis in the "Hillary Lies on YouTube" thread - it's still 100% accurate, except that "her" post count is now 240. I assumed Trinity had me on ignore because it fell on deaf ears, but then she quoted me in this thread so I guess this, much like Obama's statement, was a little too much truth for her to bear. :frown1:

Trinity,

I enjoy healthy intellectual debate, however I prefer to do it with someone who is real. Your profile and posting history share absolutely no personal details other than your gender and candidate of choice, neither of which I believe. You show zero interest in the one thing all of us have in common – having and/or enjoying a large cock. While most of us have favorite topics or sections of the site, I can’t think of any other regular contributor who posts exclusively on one topic.

With the exception of one post – your first, a year after you joined LPSG (in a Women’s Issues thread about kissing that you started but never responded on) – every single post you’ve made (130 as of this posting) has been political.

Your second post appears out of the blue 10 weeks later (unusual) in which you started a new thread (even more unusual) stating a strongly worded opinion about Obama taking his name off the Michigan ballot (!!).

This is not normal behavior for a newcomer. Most new members wade into the water, maybe post an “I’m new” welcome thread, or at the very least dip into threads here or there to make their presence known. It’s like showing up at a party where you don’t know anyone.

What (legitimate) new members do not do is leap headfirst into a controversial thread with a controversial point of view. And they certainly don’t start controversial threads with their second post.

You’ve wasted enough of my time and that of other LPSG contributors. As I said, I enjoy intellectual debate and think discourse between people with different worldviews, life experiences, and concerns can be illuminating and is both healthy and necessary, especially given the current US political environment. If I felt that you were real I would respect your point of view, regardless of how different it is from mine. I would continue to read what you have to say and possibly add my own thoughts, either in agreement or disagreement, or to offer my own different perspective. But your posting history betrays what you are Trinity, and what you are not: real.

Sincerely,
hotbtminla
 

prepstudinsc

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
17,050
Media
440
Likes
21,696
Points
468
Location
Charlotte, NC, USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
He is a militatant muslim. He and his wifes goal is to kill christans.

Get your facts straight before you speak in public about things that you don't know. He's a Christian. His father was born a muslim, but was atheist.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,168
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You are talking about the Clinton's most recent adult economic situation. Let's compare apples to apples.

I don't believe the average American can hope for a close friend, wealthy donor/slum lord's wife to buy a $600,000 parcel of land next to their million dollar home and sell it at a minimal price to them just because the sellers refused to sell the house to them without the parcel of land.

Obama is a privileged and by his statements elitist.
I expect better from you Trinity. The Rezko so called "scandal" was put to bed when Obama met with the editorial boards of all the Chicago newspapers to discuss the issue. These are the papers who know him intimately and they ALL concluded there was no "there" there. I wouldn't think a Clinton supporter would want to open the pandora's box of wealthy donors and impropriety. You wouldn't be speaking from a place of strength......as far as I know.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,168
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Obama clearly is thoroughly steeped in the liberal canon, that the only opposition to existing immigration policies is economic distress

Obama clearly is thoroughly steeped in the liberal canon, that the only
reason for subscribing to religious faith is economic distress

as is, evidently, the crowd he plays to
The word ONLY is yours, not his.
 

D_Kaye Throttlebottom

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Posts
1,536
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
123
His mother remarried. They were middle class. He also lived with his mother's family. The guy was not poor.

Michelle Obama told about her struggle paying off her loans. What she failed to mention was, during this time, she was living off of $300,000 a year. Give me a break.
Fuck off - I did not say he was poor - I said he was NOT privleged, which was transformer's argument. Read the fucking thread - stop changing the argument.

His mother re-married and Indonesian man and they moved to Indonesia and trust they were not living a privleged lifestyle. You can read about it on Time.com. His mother DIVORCED the second husband and returned to the states in Hawaii. Where he stayed with his grandparents as a teenager, because his mother was returning to Indonesia.

Sell this bullshit that he had a privleged upbringing to any single mother working and finishing a degree, because that's what his mother did.
 

D_Kaye Throttlebottom

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Posts
1,536
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
123
Obama clearly is thoroughly steeped in the liberal canon, that the only opposition to existing immigration policies is economic distress

Obama clearly is thoroughly steeped in the liberal canon, that the only
reason for subscribing to religious faith is economic distress

as is, evidently, the crowd he plays to

Find Nick show me the sound byte, where Obama says that is ONLY reason.

You added the word ONLY.

And I'd avoid using the word "crowd" - he has the widest demographic.

It's also not anything new that Obama has said before:
On why some don't vote for Democrats, not just him.
Kansas for example. They will vote on faith issues or morality issues, instead of economic issues. He mentions another town Gailsburg, Illinois that lost jobs to Mexico. Those guys are being offered re-training jobs as a nursing assistants. Big burly men..they've lost their economic certainty or optimistic stability. What they do know is that they can hunt with their friends and feel a sense of camaraderies or go to church. That was in 2004.

Further:
Look at minute 2:24 - It says the EXACT opposite that he is not contemptuous of their lifestyle and no one is looking down upon them. People that voted for GW Bush, voted for Obama as senator in 2004. A lot of republicans said "I don't agree on these other issues, but you understand where I'm coming from."

YouTube - Obama (2004) connects guns, religion, economics, and bitter

You've colored his comments all wrong.

For crying outloud. Foxnews put this story on the airwaves Friday night, after the Drudge report had it up. By Saturday they had PA voters that were not disagreeing with what Obama said about the bitterness of their economic situation.
 

D_Kaye Throttlebottom

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Posts
1,536
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
123
I expect better from you Trinity. The Rezko so called "scandal" was put to bed when Obama met with the editorial boards of all the Chicago newspapers to discuss the issue. These are the papers who know him intimately and they ALL concluded there was no "there" there. I wouldn't think a Clinton supporter would want to open the pandora's box of wealthy donors and impropriety. You wouldn't be speaking from a place of strength......as far as I know.

Not to mention Bill & Hill had donations from Rezko in Clinton's office and had an association...there's a picture with Rezko and the Clintons in the white house:

Enjoy!

Oh... I forgot - the aritcle that shows Hillary's presidential co-chair took checks from Rezko in his mayoral bid? *oops* Did I forget to mention that?

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a national co-chair of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, banked at least $1,500 in political donations from an indicted Chicago businessman, Rezko, whose past connections to Barack Obama have been used by Clinton to criticize her rival's judgment and ethics.


City records show AntoinRezko, chairman of Rezmar Corp. of Chicago, contributed $1,000 to Villaraigosa's mayoral campaign in May 2001. Those records show Rezko also donated $500 to another Villaraigosa's political committee in March 2003.


I'm curious...why would Hillary's national campaign co-chair not volunteer that he had accepted campaign contributions from Rezko in the past - criticize Obama's ethics and prior relationship with Rezko? Did Hillary know about it? Shouldn't she know about this stuff? If she's questioning Obama's ethics ... shouldn't she call in to question the ethics of her staff - her national campaign co-chair, her campaign's lead strategist?

Either Hillary just isn't swift on the uptake about who is working for her - or she's as contradictory as the sharks she has on her campaign...I'll let you decide

Clinton Co-Chair Took Checks From Rezko
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Staying on the subject of this thread...
Questions-
Has Obama screwed himself with his San Francisco statement?

If so, why and how badly? How can he recover?
If not, why not?

As I said earlier, when taken in context, I understand his sentiments. But I think it is a major tactical political blunder which his opponents will exploit to the fullest. Not everyone will be looking at his statements in context.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,168
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Staying on the subject of this thread...
Questions-
Has Obama screwed himself with his San Francisco statement?

If so, why and how badly? How can he recover?
If not, why not?

As I said earlier, when taken in context, I understand his sentiments. But I think it is a major tactical political blunder which his opponents will exploit to the fullest. Not everyone will be looking at his statements in context.
Actually Vince, I think as it plays out it will actually help him....People ARE bitter and madder than hell at their government.......Objective evidence.....Todays Rasmussen 3 day tracking poll(Obama 48 Clinton 44) shows Obama with a FIVE point gain from yesterday. The poll is an average of the last 3 days when the whole "bitter" thing has been playing out in the media. For him to jump 5 points means that he jumped much farther than that in yesterdays polling......

from the rasmussen analysis:
The data also suggests that the Obama campaign was shrewd to try and focus attention on the portion of the comments about people being bitter. Most Americans agree with Obama’s statement that “People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington.” Following the initial weekend furor over the remarks, Rasmussen Markets data still gives Obama an 81.1 % chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually Vince, I think as it plays out it will actually help him....People ARE bitter and madder than hell at their government.......Objective evidence.....Todays Rasmussen 3 day tracking poll(Obama 48 Clinton 44) shows Obama with a FIVE point gain from yesterday. The poll is an average of the last 3 days when the whole "bitter" thing has been playing out in the media. For him to jump 5 points means that he jumped much farther than that in yesterdays polling......
Interesting. I thought it could (maybe) help him as well. But the news cycle takes time. I didn't hear about this until Sunday afternoon after the MotoGP races and I assume many Americans aren't quite as tuned in as us.
 

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
I got a kick out of the way Trinity jacked up her font when she smelled blood in the water. She's just like her hero.

Anyway, I think this may be bad for my boy Barack. But I'm not going to bum too hard. It just means we stay Republican if Hillary gets the nomination.
 

D_Kaye Throttlebottom

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Posts
1,536
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
123
Interesting. I thought it could (maybe) help him as well. But the news cycle takes time. I didn't hear about this until Sunday afternoon after the MotoGP races and I assume many Americans aren't quite as tuned in as us.

GOP news.. I mean Foxnews:

found that PA voters agree with what Obama said, even McCain voters agree with what Obama said, voters are bitter with government in Washington.

Are People Bitter in Pennsylvania? « On The Scene « FOXNews.com
 

Trinity

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Posts
2,680
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
181
Gender
Female
I expect better from you Trinity. The Rezko so called "scandal" was put to bed when Obama met with the editorial boards of all the Chicago newspapers to discuss the issue. These are the papers who know him intimately and they ALL concluded there was no "there" there. I wouldn't think a Clinton supporter would want to open the pandora's box of wealthy donors and impropriety. You wouldn't be speaking from a place of strength......as far as I know.

Actually the Rezko scandal is far from over. Obama hasn't been accused of anything illegal however, that does not mean he did not do anything unethical or improper. Which is why admitted he should not have been associated with the deal. And your statement of "pandora's box of wealthy donors and impropriety" and questioning a place of strength?

Perhaps you need to read what the Right is salivating over.
Three Questions Obama Can't Answer

Obama is privileged...the average person does not have shady connections to buy land for them so they can purchase their million dollar home.

Not to mention Bill & Hill had donations from Rezko in Clinton's office and had an association...there's a picture with Rezko and the Clintons in the white house:

Oh... I forgot - the aritcle that shows Hillary's presidential co-chair took checks from Rezko in his mayoral bid? *oops* Did I forget to mention that?

I enjoy everytime you say this Zo, because it is the biggest reach and only highlights Obama's association with Resko.

Connections between Rezko and Clinton? A picture with them shows Bill was President and Hillary was First Lady.

Resko donated to a number of people and campaigns. It is not surprising that he took pictures with many. But who he donated and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to in State Senate Race, U.S. Senate Race and Presidential bid, bought land for and sold on the cheap and had deep associations with? That association stands out from the rest...Obama.
 

B_Nick4444

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Posts
6,849
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
Location
San Antonio, TX
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
the construction is implicit in the ways his words were taken out of context --- just playing devil's advocate here, because:

he is evidently playing to a liberal West coast audience here, else would he have use phraseology, even remotely similar, if he were speaking in the heartland of the country, to a heartland audience?

which raise several issues on his campaigning, inter alia, different messages for different constituencies?

letting the polls decide the message (or, e.g., the Clinton Presidency, policy by the polls?)


The word ONLY is yours, not his.

Find Nick show me the sound byte, where Obama says that is ONLY reason.

You added the word ONLY.

And I'd avoid using the word "crowd" - he has the widest demographic.

It's also not anything new that Obama has said before:
On why some don't vote for Democrats, not just him.
Kansas for example. They will vote on faith issues or morality issues, instead of economic issues. He mentions another town Gailsburg, Illinois that lost jobs to Mexico. Those guys are being offered re-training jobs as a nursing assistants. Big burly men..they've lost their economic certainty or optimistic stability. What they do know is that they can hunt with their friends and feel a sense of camaraderies or go to church. That was in 2004.

Further:
Look at minute 2:24 - It says the EXACT opposite that he is not contemptuous of their lifestyle and no one is looking down upon them. People that voted for GW Bush, voted for Obama as senator in 2004. A lot of republicans said "I don't agree on these other issues, but you understand where I'm coming from."

YouTube - Obama (2004) connects guns, religion, economics, and bitter

You've colored his comments all wrong.

For crying outloud. Foxnews put this story on the airwaves Friday night, after the Drudge report had it up. By Saturday they had PA voters that were not disagreeing with what Obama said about the bitterness of their economic situation.