Obama's recent commentsFollow

Around here, we had a trailor park that had people who owned their trailors but didn't own the land underneath them; they rented that. Then one day, after all these people had finished paying off 30 year mortgages on these mobile homes, the landlord decided that he wanted to sell the land to a developer for ANOTHER overpriced student housing complex, since it was a mile from campus. (GFDI we didn't need another one! Housing prices are already way too high for a city with a 30% poverty rating!) Nevermind that the university workers making minimum wage lived there, we needed more student housing like a hole in the head!

The law in Georgia said that mobile homes over 30 years old cannot be relocated. So, basically, these poor people that had FINALLY just finished paying for their homes, were ******* We raised over $100,000 locally to purchase the land for the residents, but the contract had been signed, the developer threatened the landlord with breech of contract, and it was too late. They were set back literally 3 decades because the system screwed them over. Sure, a trailor isn't the nicest piece of property to own, but if you're a lower income citizen, it's still your own home, and the rent on land is comparatively littled compared to the rent on house+land. They spent 30 years on a mortgage for those trailers only to see them bulldozed one horrific Monday.

To this day I have refused to set foot in the gated community that was built in its place, even though friends lived there. For the first year or two students boycotted it, but eventually new students moved in that didn't know the complex's tragic past, and now it's probably making oodles of money. It absolutely disgusts me that in the greatest country in the world that kind of **** could happen, since it's the kind of abuse that happens to the poor in third world countries on a regular basis.

Slate Mag has a couple of pundits who feel that they have an insight on Barry Hussein's bitter comments. The first, John ********** argues that Obama is a snob. But what kind of snob is he? A big one or a little snob?

http://www.slate.com/id/2188963/

The second, Timothy Noah, attempts to explain just who, precisely, these working class stiffs are that have annoyingly gotten inexplicably angry at the Presumed Annointed Black Savior of the World, aka Obamaman, the superhero who can bowl a 37 in a single line.

http://www.slate.com/id/2189011/

********* comes off as a more genuinely impartial writer, while Noah is obviously an Obama apologist wishing the Hellbeast would quit spoiling the Dem's party.

Totem

Hah. Found this bit pretty relevant to this conversation:



Hmmmm.... But it's all about religion and guns, right?

On the subject of Obama being an elitist, Jon Stewart made a funny point, to the effect of: If you don't think you're better than us, why the fuck are you running for president? The president should be better than the average Joe.

Anyway, Obama does come across as a very intelligent person able to make good judgments, and that is what a president is ultimately elected for. This comes through even when he falls under media attack.

I really didn't see how what he said was offensive in the first place, unless you were a pubbie, in which case your opinion holds little influence. It was at worst a bit patronizing, but I can appreciate the sincerity of the sentiment if nothing else. Frankly, low income people tend to be, surprise, less educated, less intelligent (because on the whole they have to worker harder to pursue continuing education and often come from less resourceful families) and more naive about fiscal matters.

Oh please just shut the fuck up varass. As if Conservatives haven't tried to tell people how to live their lives.


Where should I start?

They also say my gay friends can't get married.

I told my fiance, until our friends Travis and Trevor are legally allowed to get married, then I'm in no hurry. Hell, I wanted us to make a huge stink and try to get a civil union but they don't even offer those in Georgia.

Our constitution outlines that humans are granted unalianable rights: Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Now, we could get into an enormous debate of what constitutes the right to "live" per the Constitution, but I consider "food, clothing, shelter" to be necessities of life, and therefore defined by the constitution as things we should have, at the barest minimum. In the country envisioned by the forefathers, no one would starve, or be homeless, or naked. They were rebelling not only against the nutty King George III trying to force them to pay for a war they didn't want to fight (Hmmm . . . . sound familiar?) but also the terrible conditions on the Continent that ultimately led to tragedies such as the Irish Potato Famine, the French Revolution, etc. Hungry people riot and wreck good government. People have the right to live, therefore they have the right to eat to stay alive. And when that right is taken from them, they get pissed and start rioting.

Edited, Apr 16th 2008 1:13am by catwho

"Why do Iraq and Afganistan have universal healthcare, paid for by our own tax dollars, when we don't?" --Cat-ho

I think I'd have to pass on the universal health care these two countries have. Between the combat conditions required to make use of that nifty universal health care and the medical quality provided, I'll take my chances at the local doc-in-a-box and keep paying my insurance premium, thankyouverymuch. But hey, if it appeals to you so greatly, feel free to volunteer for some of that humanitarian relief stuff people do over there and take a carbomb in the face. I'm sure they'll treat the shrapnel wounds properly by lopping off your dome.

Totem