Doc Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Wow. Just, wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) You should see the Youtube link. The comments section is filled with people writing "It's about time someone pointed out Romney lying about this." I'm thinking...did you dolts even BOTHER to listen to the ad? How the !@#$ do you not use someone's words when quoting them? Isn't that what a quote is? Or did Obama issue an executive order changing what a quote is? Edited July 19, 2012 by Joe Miner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Crickets................ I cant wait to hear the spin on this from our Liberal Bills brothers here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 You should see the Youtube link. The comments section is filled with people writing "It's about time someone pointed out Romney lying about this." I'm thinking...did you dolts even BOTHER to listen to the ad? No, the ad had Obama saying something different. However the clip below has in that article shows the part of the speech the Romney quoted word for word. That part was not used in the ad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 How the !@#$ do you not use someone's words when quoting them? Isn't that what a quote is? Or did Obama issue an executive order changing what a quote is? Obama didn't really say that. It was Obama's evil twin Barry Sotero, sent by order of George W Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Wait a minute. Now that I saw the ad Obama's words were taken out of context too. Here's what he said: "Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you own a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else did." He's absolutely right. He never said you didn't build your business. He said you didn't build the roads and bridges. This is becoming such bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Wait a minute. Now that I saw the ad Obama's words were taken out of context too. Here's what he said: "Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you own a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else did." He's absolutely right. He never said you didn't build your business. He said you didn't build the roads and bridges. This is becoming such bull ****. Barack Obama is a weak-minded man who spends his time tapdancing on the thin line between imply and infer. He'll imply one thing that can be interpreted in many ways, and then beat you about the head when you don't infer his information the way he wanted. He is now beating himself about the head for the being an idiot. Even if he DID mean that, if you own a business, you didn't invest in roads and bridges, he's still wrong. The investments for roads and bridges come from taxes, both individual and corporate. So yes, they DID "invest" in that. He's wrong at every angle, shoved a size 10 in his mouth, and has lost the message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Wait a minute. Now that I saw the ad Obama's words were taken out of context too. Here's what he said: "Somebody invested in roads and bridges, if you own a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else did." He's absolutely right. He never said you didn't build your business. He said you didn't build the roads and bridges. This is becoming such bull ****. I noticed that last night. Just shows he's a horrible speaker when he goes off script. Either way, the gist and tone of that bit overall was to basically tell entreprenuers that they're not **** and they owe their success to the existence of government, basically implying that if government wants a bigger chunk it's rightfully entitled to it. He's also playing to class warfare by telling losers that haven't accomplished anything that the successful people doing better than us got there on our backs. The fact that it basically echoes that crazy lady's rant, which said the same thing more emphatically, pretty well dispells the myth that he was somehow bolstering the middle class. And honestly, he's not so stupid that he doesn't understand that the roads, bridges, police, etc. are more than adequately paid for by the tax base created by successful business through corporate taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, taxes taken out of employee salaries, etc. His best defense is that he's a disengenuous, divisive POS who's happy to pit Americans against each other for political gain. Quite the uniter this guy is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 This was no gaffe, sure his use of words was somewhat inartful, but the underlying premise of his message remains, which is that; with the help of society and government, you (the successful business owner) are a product of government, and that you aren't any smarter or any more hard working than the rest of us, and because of government's and societies help, you owe it back to society through higher tax collections. That's it, that's the message. I don't see why liberals are attempting to walk back his comments or state that it was taken out of context. If it's something that you fervently believe in, be proud of your ideology, and say it on a bullhorn and let the chips fall were they fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Barack Obama is a weak-minded man who spends his time tapdancing on the thin line between imply and infer. He'll imply one thing that can be interpreted in many ways, and then beat you about the head when you don't infer his information the way he wanted. He is now beating himself about the head for the being an idiot. Even if he DID mean that, if you own a business, you didn't invest in roads and bridges, he's still wrong. The investments for roads and bridges come from taxes, both individual and corporate. So yes, they DID "invest" in that. He's wrong at every angle, shoved a size 10 in his mouth, and has lost the message. But don't you have the slightest problem with the quote being taken out of context and the only part being played is: "if you own a business, you didn't build that"? And people running with that part of the quote only? I do. Just as I had a problem with the Romney quote being taken out of context saying he wasn't concerned with poor people. Both sides suck. Edited July 19, 2012 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 But don't you have the slightest problem with the quote being taken out of context and the only part being played is: "if you own a business, you didn't build that"? And people running with that part of the quote only? I do. Just as I had a problem with the Romney quote being taken out of context saying he wasn't concerned with poor people. Both sides suck. I do somewhat, but it wasn't until the third or fourth time I heard it that I caught it. And it's not necessarily inconsistent with his message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 But don't you have the slightest problem with the quote being taken out of context and the only part being played is: "if you own a business, you didn't build that"? And people running with that part of the quote only? I do. Just as I had a problem with the Romney quote being taken out of context saying he wasn't concerned with poor people. Both sides suck. The problem is his use of the pronoun "that" instead of "those," to refer to the previous subjects of roads and bridges, much less how a great teacher taught you. And as RH said, it's in-line with his beliefs, i.e. that if your success/failure is the result/fault of others. The Romney quote was truly taken out of context because the "because they have a very ample safety net" was cut out. Not unlike the edited tape of George Zimmerman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I recomend reading the whole article. How "You didn't build that" became "He didn't say that" Tim Cavanaugh | July 18, 2012 What do you do when everybody's claiming your president said something, and you just know he didn't really say it, but all the video and all the audio and all the transcripts show that he did say it? This is the dilemma faced by supporters of President Obama in the long wake of last week's "You didn't build that" speech. The president's opponents are making a big fuss over comments that are on their face contemptuous of individual merit and out of step with American popular opinion. The president's supporters have a multipronged counterargument: Either he didn't make those comments or they were taken out of context or even if they are in context they don't matter because we should be reading between the lines. {snip} But at TPM, David Taintor calls "You didn't build that" a "canard" that was cooked up by rightwing bloggers and belatedly adopted by Mitt Romney's campaign. {Snip} I remain in awe of Dave's dogged and enterprising journalism, but I don't believe he can "tell" when the president is saying one thing but apparently meaning something else. I'm also not clear on what Dave's getting at by selectively boldfacing the sentences "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that." You could just as easily prove the opposite by boldfacing "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Either way, there's no prettying up these lines. Exactly who is playing context games here? A commenter on Emily Ekins' post last night goes even further, condemning the "intellectual dishonesty it takes to believe that's what he said." So I'll bite: What should we believe he said, other than what he in fact said? The popularization of Derridaian post-modernism since the 1990s has generally been a lot of fun, turning mainstream Americans into sharp observers of signs and meaning who are sure that either there's nothing outside the text or everything is outside the text or both. But at some point it helps to look at that thing above the subtext, which is generally known as "the text." Up to this point the presidential election has been Obama vs. Obama Junior. With "You didn't build that," which his campaign has made no effort to clarify or redirect, the president has drawn a line in the sand. There is no nebulousness here. Beyond the paragraph quoted above, Obama calls government spending "the investments that grow our economy." He ridicules the tendency of Americans to brag about being hard workers with a variant of "So's your old man." ("Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.") He instinctively names "a great teacher" when looking for somebody to credit for causing success in the working world. The president has boldly presented his view on how an economy works. His supporters should give him the respect of taking his words seriously. Reason Magazine . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 But don't you have the slightest problem with the quote being taken out of context and the only part being played is: "if you own a business, you didn't build that"? And people running with that part of the quote only? I do. Just as I had a problem with the Romney quote being taken out of context saying he wasn't concerned with poor people. Both sides suck. Fine. Both sides suck. You know what happened the last time only one side sucked and the other side opted for the high road? McCain got his ass handed to him by Obama. You think Obama is suddenly going to play nice this time? Please. And again...watch the whole comment (and most places ARE playing the whole thing "for context").And one thing you can't argue; he's genuinely believes that if it were not for the government, successful people would not be successful. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/18/krauthammer_you_didnt_build_it_should_be_hung_around_obama_until_end_of_his_presidency.html CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think Obama has made the gaffe of the year when he said if you created a business, you didn't build it. That phrase, 'you didn't build it' should be hung around Obama until the end of his presidency. I read the totality of the statement and it's worse if you read it all. Essentially, he has a view that is antithetical to view that the majority of the Americans have, which is that enterprise, initiative of the markets are what drive American wealth and excellence and achievements. Government is parasitic on that and lives off the excess wealth in the form of taxation. Obama has view at the heart of American excellence and achievement is government, not enterprise. And I think what Romney ought to do is take the headline in today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, 'Solyndra versus Staples.' And he has to have a simple slogan, Romney, which is, 'Obama and his administration gave you Solyndra, using your money incidentally. I and my colleagues in the free enterprise system gave you Staples with all the jobs and all the wealth and all the accrued wealth it gave to the foundations with the pension and the universities that invested with us in those enterprises.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Fine. Both sides suck. You know what happened the last time only one side sucked and the other side opted for the high road? McCain got his ass handed to him by Obama. You think Obama is suddenly going to play nice this time? Please. And again...watch the whole comment (and most places ARE playing the whole thing "for context").And one thing you can't argue; he's genuinely believes that if it were not for the government, successful people would not be successful. Period. And that is why I bolded the last paragraph of the article I just posted. You can try and torture his remarks as much as you like. He made several other references that support his pro-government positions.....it was no gaffe. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Fine. Both sides suck. You know what happened the last time only one side sucked and the other side opted for the high road? McCain got his ass handed to him by Obama. You think Obama is suddenly going to play nice this time? Please. And again...watch the whole comment (and most places ARE playing the whole thing "for context").And one thing you can't argue; he's genuinely believes that if it were not for the government, successful people would not be successful. Period. I don't know what he genuinely believes. But for all of you to throw out there that Obama said that people didn't build their businesses you've got your partisan blinders on because that is not what he said. And don't give me the implied and inferred ****. I'm usually behind you but this time you're barking up the wrong tree. Instead of using a line out of context that has been twisted to fit your agenda (not yours personally but the right which I'm part of) use his actions as President. Now, having said all this my line still stands. What was the point of that speech Mr. President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 What was the point of that speech Mr. President? The point of the speech is precisely what you don't want to agree with. Very simply: no one is successful without the government. Period. And since the government is responsible for your success, you owe the government to pay it forward by giving your fair share back. What he did was go off script of an Elizabeth Warren quote here. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. Same thing, but Obama tried to improvise, and we both know he's not smart enough to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 The point of the speech is precisely what you don't want to agree with. Very simply: no one is successful without the government. Period. And since the government is responsible for your success, you owe the government to pay it forward by giving your fair share back. What he did was go off script of an Elizabeth Warren quote here. Same thing, but Obama tried to improvise, and we both know he's not smart enough to do that. So you're using a quote from some whack job to tell me what Obama was saying? Ok...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 That's Chef's opinion, I can certainly respect his hard headed opinion, even though he's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts