This is very disappointing to say the least.
Finally someone who is honest enough to speak the truth and he's pressured to apologize.

Is there any doubt in your minds that some people in this country are bitter about losing their jobs, losing their homes and the general situation that the US is in? He spoke absolute truth, incredible for a politician, and was immediately pounced on by the other two business as usual candidates.

In typical political form they bragged that they saw the glass as half full. That's the usual spin bulls**t we been getting for years.

We want change? Oh wait...just not that much.
Honesty is not what we're ready for. We still want our candidates to ignore the difficult problems and tell us how much faith they have in the American spirit.

In other words...you can do it, don't expect much from us.

I believe the key word is "Some". Obama made it sound like all or a majority were that way. And he said far more than just "bitter". He did make them sound like a bunch of racists and xenophobes who were gun-totting religious wackos. No, that isn't exactly what he said. Rightly or wrongly, some interpreted that way. If he had left it at bitter he probably would have been okay.

His choice of words to express his meaning were poor.

He did use the word some and included the feelings he was speaking of to several states including his own. I have yet to see anyone show that he was speaking lies. Just truth that was too harsh for gentrified ears.

We are just not ready for any straight talk that has not been screened for PC correctness.

I'll bet quite a few Americans believe they would embrace someone like Teddy Roosevelt...a straight talker.

We BS ourselves as usual.

He did say "some" but as "some towns" not some people. He is still saying all those towns have people that are bitter AND xenophobic, racist, etc.

As I said. His meaning was good and truthful. It is just the words he used to express that meaning.

If he just said some people or

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then thatSOME get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

things would have been better. Or as I said earlier if he had stopped at 'bitter' he would have been fine without needing some people (some towns would have sufficed)

This has nothing to do with PC. What he meant to say may be true.
What he did say or rather the interpretation of what he said is simply not true. Yes, some people, maybe even many people are bitter, however the rest is questionable.

Generalizations are rarely a good thing to make especially when the generalization is a negative one as "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment"

"clinging to guns" has major negative connotations. Makes them sound like gun-fanatics who cling to them like children cling to teddy bears.

"clinging to religion" same problem with the addition that it makes it sound as if believing in a religion is a bad thing.

"antipathy to people who aren't like them" again a unfair statement. It again makes it sound like those towns are filled with xenophobes which simply isn't true. Some people maybe but that isn't the same as "some towns"

"anti-immigrant" that is really really really bulls**t. As I said in the other thread. Few people are anti-immigrants. Some might be but it is a small minority. Now anti-ILLEGAL immigrants is another story. That has nothing to do with people being out of work, that is just people including immigrants who feel that the laws should be followed.

So we are actually discussing sematics and not content or truth. I assume he meant to say what he said: "some people in this coutry are bitter." That's a truth that can be said at any time about most towns in the entire country. I think it's ironic that people agree what he said is truthful, they just don't like the way he said it.

That's Politics as usual and is at the heart of being "politically Correct" which most people claim to dislike.


Illegal immigrants can be a slippery slope too.
Many of them work at jobs and pay income taxes and SS taxes and will never get a payout from the system. I'm against illegal immigration buit like so many things it has more than one side.

Like Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona, said
show me a 50 foot wall and I'll show you a 50 foot ladder. There is no easy, fair and inexpensive way to deal with this problem.

Being anti illegal is just too simplistic.

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not we agree with him or disagree with him. It has to do with the fact that what he said was a blatant hit towards those with religious values and those that support the right to bear arms (which he does not support on an individual basis).

He's apologizing for an awful lot lately. "Oh, I didn't mean to say what came out of my mouth." Or, "Oh, I didn't mean it that way." Or, "My wife didn't mean what she said." Bulls**t. That's not honesty, that's covering your tracks. Obama is anything but an honest person.

Mrs. Napolitano needs a lesson in math :). A 50 ft ladder wouldn't do anything on a 50 foot wall. You'd need a bigger ladder ;)

Brother, you are nowhere near understanding the point. He shouldn't have to be apologizing for anything. He spoke the truth. The fuss created and the fact that he and his managers feel they are forced to go this route is exactly what's wrong with our system. The assumption, and it is sheer assumption, that he meant everyone when he said "some" is not rational.

You want to associate the term "right to bear arms" with using a gun on the street? That's what Obama was talking about. Missed the point again. You are very ready to exaggerate and spin pretty much everything he says.

I really can't believe you took what Mrs Napolitano said literally. Do you really believe that she became Governor of Arizona and is too stupid to realize that?

It seems you miss the point very frequently.

You're right, he shouldn't have to apologize. What he said was retarded and politically stupid, but he should not have to apologize.

However, this is just another example of where he "misspoke" and didn't really mean what he said.

"Clinging to their guns" is pretty clear to me that control is a good idea.

I was joking about Napolitano

Oops, for a moment I thought you meant Dubya.

The point was, as Jack Nicholson said:

"You don't want the truth." It seems you'd rather continue the fear factor that the Republicans used so effectively the last two elections.

Sadly that includes way too many people in this country.

It's not about fear...I'm not trying to scare someone into anything. I'm trying to point out that Obama is someone we dont want to be President. I, in fact, make the prediction that if he does become President, he will be a much worse President than Bush, as hard as that may be :).

No one will be or can be a worse president than Bush.

I can name three off the top of my head.

1. Lyndon Johnson
2. Abraham Lincoln
3. Woodrow Wilson

Ok, Ok, you got me. All this time I thought you were serious. You even had me thinking, for a short while, that you had a modicum of knowledge and a serious interest in history.

You did suck me in. :-)

Anyway, as a parting gesture let me submit some poll information taken in 2006. He's actually added more reasons to place him at the top since then...but only if you accept his constantly dropping approval rating. Damn he doubles the percentage of even tricky d**ky.

These polls evaluate Presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower and later succession.

A Quinnipiac University poll, taken May 23-30, 2006, asked 1,534 registered American voters to pick the worst U.S. President of the last 61 years.[11]

"Which of these eleven presidents we have had since World War II would you consider the worst president - Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush?"

1. George W. Bush (34%)
2. Richard Nixon (17%)
3. Bill Clinton (16%)
4. Jimmy Carter (13%)
5. Don't Know/No Answer (5%)
6. Lyndon Johnson (4%)
7. George H. W. Bush (3%)
8. Ronald Reagan (3%)
9. Gerald Ford (2%)
10. Harry Truman (1%)
11. John Kennedy (1%)
12. Dwight Eisenhower (<1%)

Thanks for the chuckles but I've had enough for now.

Polls deal with emotions, not facts. You can't prove W. is the worst president because 34% of people polled think he is. If you took this poll in 1998 or 1998, Clinton would be much, much higher than 34%.

In 1870, Lincoln would have been at a 50% worst President rating.

I can't prove anything but history suggests the truth and will prove it for me.

This is 2008 and not 1870!

Hey, buy a newspaper, move closer to town or just give it up.

You can't, however, claim in the future Bush will still be the worst President.

And for your information, the reason I know more about Obama than all the rest of you is because I DO read the newspaper and I DO follow politics closely.

The way I judge a President is his respect for natural rights and the Constitution. By that standard, the three I listed above easily fall above Bush in the worst President standing. Bush is certainly an awful President, but he is NOT the worst by any stretch of the imagination. He may have the lowest support of any President, but that doesn't make him the worst.

Whatever.