Clarification to Obama's statements

It was exactly as I said. The way it was quoted before made no sense. Obama was not trying to say that people cling to guns and religion because of poor politics.

He clarified it tonight in the debate versus Hillary, for those of us who actually keep up with politics and keep our heads out of the mud.

And just as I believed it would be, Obama was trying to say they cling to those things politically. They vote based off of those issues. Those are the issues they care about. And why? Well of course:

Because they are bitter from being told the same thing for 8 years and the opposite happening. Out of frustration, they've given up on the key issues, and stuck to the roots of religion, guns, etc. Things they can control, not the economic garbage we've been dealing with.

Just wanted to make sure that correction got out there. There's been a lot of mudslinging on this forum, and not much real discussion.

I invite all who want to talk real politics to discuss in any of my threads.

Yes and by doing so they play right into the hands of those who would use triangulation tactics to further a political agenda. Americans are frequently manipulated into voting against their interests, economically and philosophically. I don't think most Americans have a real clear idea of what ideology they stand for anymore as it has all been so twisted by PACs, lobbyists and the two party system.

reply to post by kosmicjack


Hear, hear!
What do you mean? We aren't legally bound by a two party system!

I wonder if we will ever be able to convince the citizens of this country that our founding fathers never intended it to be just that, a two party system.

On topic: Obama, don't trust him. Let me explain what I really meant by what I said back there a minute ago now that so one called me on what I said. How does that make sense? Now that I have had enough time to spin this . . .

There are miles to go before we sleep...




[edit on 4/16/2008 by bobafett1972]

reply to post by bobafett1972


Giving speeches is hard.

Do you think Bush really believed that OBGYNs need to make love with their patients? Of course not.

Words come out funny when put on the spot. When Obama said that comment, it didn't make sense to anyone. Isn't that a clue that it probably came out twisted?

reply to post by Sublime620



ROTFLMFAO! That example is priceless...unfortunately for the Decider, there are soooo many more!

reply to post by kosmicjack


My favorite was his quote on tribal sovereignty. If you haven't heard it, I highly suggest you type "Bush tribal sovereignty" into google. I have never a worse answer, and to top it off, the people in the room started laughing after he gave his answer.

Eh, screw it, here's the vid:

reply to post by Sublime620


Trying to process your post is hard; only because I am trying to figure out if you were being serious or not. If not it was super funny.

Giving a speach is hard. If you are in 10th grade public speaking class. At this point in his career, Mr. Obama should have it down pat, otherwise his pick the wrong field on career day. I am all for mistakes but speaking in tongues just does not fly.

Sometimes I think it is all a dream; that these people can't possibly be this out of touch with their constituants. Then I wake up in a pool of my own sweat, crying like a baby.

reply to post by bobafett1972


Even the best speakers in the world admit to being nervous when on stage in front of millions giving speeches. All of them make mistakes. I just watched one where McCain butchered a word (I cant even remember what it was).

Yes, after giving many speeches it can become numbing. That makes it easier for politicians, celebrities, and the likes the give speeches on a regular basis. There is no doubt about that.

That does not, however, make them infallible to mistakes.

*Edited to add:

Especially in public forum style speeches where questions are fielded and responses may have to be candid.

[edit on 16-4-2008 by Sublime620]

A good point, but let's not forget that ALL threads have a place here, along with ALL opinions - within the T&C of course

Candidate advocacy (yeah I know we've been integrated, but all the threads are still running) is a place for people to express how they see a candidates views, as well as their policies, and also their personal impressions of candidates - it may be that someone just plain doesn't like a candidate, and are expressing their dislike.

With that in mind, let's try and embrace opposite opinions and discuss them in a way that educates us all.

Having said that, good thread

reply to post by budski


Have you seen this one yet?

Falling into the media trap

I like this thread better, but I think I should have posted it in this forum. It gets no attention over there.

I hadn't seen it, which is a shame because it's another good thread.

I think that this forum gets more attention because it deals with politics and politicians from a wider range of countries, plus I could talk about the effect of US policy on the UK (or vice versa) in here and it would be in the right place as it affects 2 different countries.

You could always u2u one of the forum mods and ask for it to be moved - but bear in mind they're pretty busy folk, so it might not get done immediately

reply to post by budski


Nah, I'll just keep spamming my own posts. I like to hear myself talk anyway.

By the time I'm done with it, it'll be one of those ATS giant threads with all "Sublime620" posts.



[edit on 17-4-2008 by Sublime620]

I understood what Obama meant the first time he said it. It amazes me that it wasn't that clear to others. I've certainly seen a lot of "bitterness" in my area because of plants and mills going overseas and leaving many to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart at half their former wages or less. And yes, faith and guns are both important to many here.

Obama always makes a lot of sense to me.

So McCain and Hillary say that Obamas bitter comments were offending and wrong. So americans are not bitter?

Truth hurts and this is how the higher ups exploit some of the US people.