Obama - Another Limousine Liberal

I dont think it is Obama, just the mindset of the party core. They have a bunker mentality. It is "them" against "us" and unfortunately, despite their protestations, the "US" is short for the USA.

It doesn't surprise me that Obama appeals to the bitter, he's nothing but a bitter racist himself.

Oh please, I am soo sick of brainless republicans arguing "I want to have a beer with that guy, so there should be no problem with him having NUCLEAR LAUNCH CODES!"

Face facts, the Bush disaster will cost this country decades of time and TRILLIONS of dollars to recover from.  He will easily be the worst President and arguably the worst American in the history of this country.

No it won't, and Jimmy Carter (hanging with his Hamas buddies) easily holds that honor.

But I find it interesting how people like yourself complain about federal dollars, but yet Obama supports the Global Poverty Act (international welfare), more entitlement programs, and socialized healthcare. 

 

And I'm really tired of hearing Obama-bots tell us how great of a cult leader he is.

Better than giving the launch codes to a bimbo that does not know what sniper fire is.   

Or better yet, a bot that does not know what button to push when voting on pork!   

Or a smirking chimpanzee who was blissfully unaware that because of his pampered existence that the price of gas was forecasted to reach $4/gallon.

Sounds like the rantings of a mindles democrat to me. Tell me, have you ever had an original thought? Or are you fat and happy just repeating taglines fed you by the DNC?

This is pretty basic psychology. I can understand people might not like the idea that it's easy to manipulate groups through playing to their fears, but it happens and there doesn't seem to be an advantage in denying it.

Why is it so contentious for Obama to state a simple truth about human nature?

Cacto has it right. What he said is actually true and there is no real reason to dispute it.
He seems like a guy who could work with both sides of the house but I won't vote for a Democrat solely because of their 2nd Amendment Stand.
Obama's state of Illinois is almost as bad as Mass or Cali when it comes to limiting Gun Owner's rights so I would vote for someone who is weak on ownership rights (McCain) before a phony Military Supporter (hillary) or someone who thinks that his home state has reasonable gun laws.

See, my bitterness has made me a one issue voter! But hey I pay my taxes!

But I can't help but notice that he NEVER said anything like this when he was talking to peoplel in his home state of Illinois.

You need to start blogging about other things, ID. You're starting to sound like a right-wing version of Col. Gene - the only difference is the crowd of sycophants now pants with you instead of against you.

Too late! Kerry lost!   

And any competant Psychologist will tell you that generalizations are the bastardization of the profession. That is one possible explanation, but with no more to go on, it is a statement by an incompetant (or layman) hack who is trying to get air time, not address and understand a situation. Especially not when talking about groups of people instead of an individual.

It is called Psychology, not Psychohistory for a reason.

Hey idiotboy, your buffoonish overlord GW is already on tape saying he hadn't heard ANYTHING about gas prices.

There go those 3 fingers again! You really should be kinder to yourself.   

No need to insult me.  There is no comparison to someone with BDS.

 

LOL.  The President doesn't control gas prices.  

Politics is about theory, not practice. You win an election based on your understanding of the electorate and your ability to engage it with your vision. As politicians are not seers their visions are not guaranteed plans; all they can offer is estimates and generalisations.

Nonetheless, I don't see why Obama shouldn't be able to think attitudes in certain areas might have a psychological basis. No one knows what's really going on there, so he may as well have a reasoned guess at it.

Didn't mean it as an insult, just as a word of warning - it's what you're starting to seem like.

No, politics is about getting votes. Period. Not about theory or practice. It is a dirty immoral game, and those that play it well move up.



And here is where I find the double standard. Recently you defended Obama for firing a staffer for observing that children playing in trees look like monkeys (race irrelevant). And your justification? Perception, not fact. While I could make the statement (so the arguement went), she could not because she was connected with the candidate.

Now you are defending the MAN (not a staffer) for basically saying the same thing about a different group of people. Since the staffer was fired (even with appologies), should not the candidate be held to the same standard?

politicians have to be two faced, and double standard bastards. The supporters do not have to sell themselves to that LCD, and I would expect at least the Ethical ones to adhere to a single standard. This is a case where clearly a double standard exists, and it does not give a good appearance to the man that his supporters will prostitute themselves for the man, not the message.

Maybe when I start quoting Nostradomus and run around accusing Bush of murdering soldiers.  

Gee, GW sure thought they did in 2000 when he claimed that $2.50 a gallon gas was inarguable proof that Bill Clinton had destroyed the economy and Bush bragged that his oil contacts would allow him to lower the price of oil.

So you are saying Bush is a liar?

BTW, I notice you still "forgot" to address the fact that your buffoonish overlord is still so out of touch he had NO KNOWLEDGE of gas prices.l

They're different situations. A leader can say what they like; they define the agenda. A follower should follow. They don't get to have their own voice or public opinions because they have chosen to sacrifice their own views in service of their patron.

When they do voice a public opinion or get publicly involved they can't expect it to go unnoticed. Maybe they'll get away with it, but there's no guarantee.

# fingers sam, 3 fingers!   

We will disagree then. For what you say is exactly what the left (incorrectly) in this country has been accusing the Bush Supporters of. We follow, but we do not do so in lock step. We rant and rave about the things we do not agree with and call him to task. Even Clinton, I followed, and no one can accuse me of not speaking up about him.

They are not different situations. They are the classic "Do as I say, not as I do", and I am not one to listen to that line.

The staffer may have been wrong (I do not think so, but can see your point), but the MAN is wrong, and even if I was supporting him (in a 2 way race with Hillary, I would be), I would state that he is wrong. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. And a stupid mistake, but then he has already admitted as much. Only his spin doctors are now trying to justify it. And that will only make it worse as he not only is getting blamed for what he said, now he is getting blamed for calling those who disagree with him stupid (even though that is his spin doctors making the stupid statements).

When do you suppose was the last time Bush ever pumped his own gas?