Originally posted by bigbert81
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
Grrrr, you edited just as I was replying. Nevertheless, I'll respond to what you originally posted.
(Not verbatem) Who sponsored a bill to disallow meals and gifts from lobbyists?
Well, I don't know, but I'll assume it's Obama.
I had a friend, many moons ago, who was an ultra-liberal. He wasn't destitute, but was by no means rich. He was gainfully employed and made about
what I made. But he'd never ever give money to the homeless guys and gals we'd regularly encounter in our city. I always gave a dollar, and when I
first realized he never did, sometimes I'd give two or three dollars just to try to be an example.
Whenever I asked him why he never gave anything he'd say, "Why should I have to? The government should be doing that"
. In this case, he
was a big government liberal because it was in his own self-interest.
He didn't want the personal responsibility of looking out for someone else. He didn't want to fork over a dollar even on a freezing cold night when
two young ladies wanted some cash to get something hot to drink. I would not call him an "elitist".
Obama wasn't called an elitist either, until he made those comments about people "clinging to their guns and religion" out of bitterness about
their economic futures. He showed that he has no understanding of people who support the 2nd Amendment so that they can defend themselves and their
families, or simply to hunt.
He showed no understanding of people who actually believe in God. Perhaps he was pandering to San Francisco socialites. But in his book he wrote
that he had no real faith, but sought the church for it's community-mindedness, both in it's work outside the church and it's community within the
church. He is essentially an agnostic who gets more out of the social church experience than the actual dogma of Christianity.
Now, that's all well and good. I'm agnostic myself. But it's that distinction between the churches community work and it's religious foundation,
and his liberal "elitist" (the definition cited above) mindset that has him baffled by true believers.
He apparantly believes that people he doesn't understand have gone wrong somewhere. As a pro gun control agnostic, he assumes that devotion to God
and defense of gun ownership must be symptoms of something nefarious -- that something has gone awry with those people and that government can solve
their "guns and God problem" if only they had a little more "hope-change".
[edit on 19-5-2008 by Tuning Spork]