"if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W:804

[Thunder]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

sort of like the idiocy from the parasite support team over Romney's comments about firing people?...

dehumanizing your political opponents only hurts your argument, TD.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Bottom line. Obama did not say what many are claiming he said. Not that such matters to the partisan. He simply said that while many business people did build their business with hard work and vision, they didn't build the roads that helped them.

If he's successful, he pays a higher tax rate than most people, so in fact he contributed disproportionately to the expense of building up the state-funded infrastructure. Even the taxpayer funded stuff is "help" that the successful business owner pays for, even disproportionately. So for the hundredth time, WHAT IS THE POINT in Obama alleging this?

Is something MORE suddenly owed by the business owner to those outside the business whose "help" he already paid for?

And that while we accomplish on our own, we also do a lot of good work and accomplish things together. Radical ****, I know, but we really should be honest here.

I can't believe reasonable liberals won't accept the possibility that he is implying more than his words mean at the literal surface level. No business person anywhere is arguing he single handedly created his universe. There is a reason he is lecturing business owners about something they already knew. Is something MORE owed, even if they paid the taxes required of them and paid the employees and contractors the agreed upon rate?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- O

All you did was a make a bunch of random accusations at Obama. None of that has anything to do with what he said, nor does it have anything to do with what Mitt Romney said. Both said that individual success, while undoubtedly requiring hard work from the person, is not attained solely by that individual.

Sorry if that pisses you off, or if you have trouble understanding that basic concept.

Yep, you are unable to get that those things are extrapolated from the speech. They are positions Obama has adopted and the speech ties into his platforms and policies. This thread is about that speech and how it ties to the campaign. In this campaign all of the things I said about Obama are reflected in this speech or make cogent points about what he wants to accomplish...in other words its not only on topic, its the topic. So now I want you to stop with the off topic crap and ankle biting.

You are completely entitled to your useless opinion about whats on topic, but if you are in doubt you know where the triangle is, use it.

This speech goes right down to what they each believe and the optics are so very very bad that libs on this site are doing everything they can not to have people put together the pieces of what this guy really believes. He shows it when he goes off the teleprompter.

"Eventually you have made enough money"
"We are going to spread the wealth around"
"You didnt build that"

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

dehumanizing your political opponents only hurts your argument, TD.

Says the guy with an avatar of someone with a bullet through their head. Glass houses, dude.

 

[Thunder]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Says the guy with an avatar of someone with a bullet through their head. Glass houses, dude.

um......I assure you, it is NOT a bullet.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

If he's successful, he pays a higher tax rate than most people, so in fact he contributed disproportionately to the expense of building up the state-funded infrastructure. Even the taxpayer funded stuff is "help" that the successful business owner pays for, even disproportionately. So for the hundredth time, WHAT IS THE POINT in Obama alleging this?

Is something MORE suddenly owed by the business owner to those outside the business whose "help" he already paid for?

Even if we take what you say is fact, none of them did it by themselves. It took the collective to manage it.

I can't believe reasonable liberals won't accept the possibility that he is implying more than his words mean at the literal surface level. No business person anywhere is arguing he single handedly created his universe. There is a reason he is lecturing business owners about something they already knew. Is something MORE owed, even if they paid the taxes required of them and paid the employees and contractors the agreed upon rate?

The trouble is people leave what his words actually said to leap to all kinds of mindless partisan conclusions not supported by the words. When you try to make them say something they didn't ignoring other words in the speech, you are not seeking what is implied, but the spin you want them to mean. Too many start from their errornous positions and try to make everything fit that narrative. When it doesn't, they won't let things like the truth stqnd in the way.

If it helps, this is not limited to any political party or ideology.

 

[AdamT]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

sort of like the idiocy from the parasite support team over Romney's comments about firing people?

or the deliberate lies about Romney outsourcing jobs

The difference, of course, is that most on the left acknowledged that Romney didn't *really* enjoy firing people. It was simply lampooned as an unfortunate gaffe that fed into the Bain/Richie Rich narrative. In contrast, the right, up to and including Romney himself, are taking the idiotic position that Obama really thinks that people play no part in creating businesses.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

The difference, of course, is that most on the left acknowledged that Romney didn't *really* enjoy firing people. It was simply lampooned as an unfortunate gaffe that fed into the Bain/Richie Rich narrative. In contrast, the right, up to and including Romney himself, are taking the idiotic position that Obama really thinks that people play no part in creating businesses.

Catch Jon Stewart tonight. He's spot on this point.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

are taking the idiotic position that Obama really thinks that people play no part in creating businesses.

"Plays no part"? Who "takes" that position?

You accused me of creating a strawman to combat Obama's strawman, though you couldn't explain what my strawman was.

Here, you've done exactly that yourself. No one said Obama said people take NO part in creating business.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Even if we take what you say is fact, none of them did it by themselves. It took the collective to manage it.

No one has ever alleged otherwise (e.g. that the business owner himself built the roads). Why remind of the blatantly obvious?

The trouble is people leave what his words actually said to leap to all kinds of mindless partisan conclusions

It's neither mindless not partisan. If there's no ulterior motive, he's babbling about the absurdly obvious. Of course the business owner did not solely build roads and bridges.

When you try to make them say something they didn't ignoring other words in the speech, you are not seeking what is implied, but the spin you want them to mean.

You argue there is nothing implied or suggested? No conclusion to draw? Just Obarney the dinosaur with another lesson to share and hug?

Too many start from their errornous positions and try to make everything fit that narrative. When it doesn't, they won't let things like the truth stqnd in the way.

There's nothing "truthful" or factual to discuss. He's stating things in ways that wouldn't make sense for him to say just for the hell of it. It's not so wild to infer things from these smarmy politicians' speeches. Their speeches are laden with strategy and cunning sharp-tongued finesse. No point playing dumb to it all anymore.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

No one has ever alleged otherwise (e.g. that the business owner himself built the roads). Why remind of the blatantly obvious?



It's neither mindless not partisan. If there's no ulterior motive, he's babbling about the absurdly obvious. Of course the business owner did not solely build roads and bridges.



You argue there is nothing implied or suggested? No conclusion to draw? Just Obarney the dinosaur with another lesson to share and hug?



There's nothing "truthful" or factual to discuss. He's stating things in ways that wouldn't make sense for him to say just for the hell of it. It's not so wild to infer things from these smarmy politicians' speeches. Their speeches are laden with strategy and cunning sharp-tongued finesse. No point playing dumb to it all anymore.

Here's his thesis: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.”

I'm sorry, but obvious or not, it is what he said. Pretending anything else is dishonest.

 

[AdamT]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

No one has ever alleged otherwise (e.g. that the business owner himself built the roads). Why remind of the blatantly obvious?

Come on, dude -- it's a campaign speech. Stating the obvious is ALWAYS a part of EVERY speech ... often used to introduce a concept, or as some kind of transition.

Example from Romney's speech to the NAACP:

The Republican Party’s record, by the measures you rightly apply, is not perfect. Any party that claims a perfect record doesn’t know history the way you know it.

Yet always, in both parties, there have been men and women of integrity, decency, and humility who called injustice by its name.

What? Who claimed that either party was perfect? Why is he stating the obvious? Are we stupid? Who ever claimed that both parties haven't had men and woment of integrity who called injustice by its name? Obviously he must mean something else....

 

[Phoenix]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

It's funny that Obama is being so hounded by this, he has had to make public statements explaining himself.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Come on, dude -- it's a campaign speech. Stating the obvious is ALWAYS a part of EVERY speech ... often used to introduce a concept, or as some kind of transition.

Example from Romney's speech to the NAACP:

The Republican Party’s record, by the measures you rightly apply, is not perfect. Any party that claims a perfect record doesn’t know history the way you know it.
Yet always, in both parties, there have been men and women of integrity, decency, and humility who called injustice by its name.​

What? Who claimed that either party was perfect? Why is he stating the obvious? Are we stupid? Who ever claimed that both parties haven't had men and woment of integrity who called injustice by its name? Obviously he must mean something else....

You're probably being sarcastic, but I agree completely. Such as, "hey guys, I know you don't like us, but... come on now... at least consider it?"


Jeez, I think I'm starting to figure out why I never agree with party loyalists. They actually believe what politicians are saying, and take them at their literal word, not bothering to see through it and discern a deeper motive. They all have deeper motives guys. At the very least, it's simply to dupe us into voting for them.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Here's his thesis: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.”

I'm sorry, but obvious or not, it is what he said. Pretending anything else is dishonest.

I know that's literally what he said. I'm not arguing about which words he uttered or in what sequence. I'm suggesting there is a subtler message that was not conveyed literally. Either he's just trying to rally voters in an election year who quiver with excitement at the thought of Robin Hood as president, or he's actually trying to be a Robin Hood president.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

I know that's literally what he said. I'm not arguing about which words he uttered or in what sequence. I'm suggesting there is a subtler message that was not conveyed literally. Either he's just trying to rally voters in an election year who quiver with excitement at the thought of Robin Hood as president, or he's actually trying to be a Robin Hood president.

You over think it. Trying to hard to make something there that isn't. He made a simple case, and one that has been made before. If you have to read that much into it, it really isn't there.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

You over think it. Trying to hard to make something there that isn't. He made a simple case, and one that has been made before. If you have to read that much into it, it really isn't there.

What case did he make? As in, what, exactly, are we supposed to take away from it? "No one achieves success alone" isn't a conclusion; it's a premise. So, what's the conclusion? Cases have conclusions.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

What case did he make? As in, what, exactly, are we supposed to take away from it? "No one achieves success alone" isn't a conclusion; it's a premise. So, what's the conclusion? Cases have conclusions.

This is not rocket science. Again:

Here's his thesis: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.”

Not shocking, not controverisal, not huge, and not original. But also not the silliness your side is trying to pretend.

BTW, Stewart did a great job on this last night.

Stewart's crack research team neatly deconstructed how Fox has taken a grammatical slip and turned it into a full-blown assault on President Obama revealing his Marxist tendencies -- a meme seized on by the Romney campaign and turned into political ads.

The really devastating moment in this clip, though, is when Fox's morning host Steve Doocy says they're going to put the story in context, then proceeds to distort it further.


Read more: 'Daily Show's' Latest Fox News Slap is Revealing - BLTv on Variety.com
Visit Variety.com to become a Variety subscriber.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

This is not rocket science. Again:




Not shocking, not controverisal, not huge, and not original. But also not the silliness your side is trying to pretend.

BTW, Stewart did a great job on this last night.

Stewart's crack research team neatly deconstructed how Fox has taken a grammatical slip and turned it into a full-blown assault on President Obama revealing his Marxist tendencies -- a meme seized on by the Romney campaign and turned into political ads.

The really devastating moment in this clip, though, is when Fox's morning host Steve Doocy says they're going to put the story in context, then proceeds to distort it further.


Read more: 'Daily Show's' Latest Fox News Slap is Revealing - BLTv on Variety.com
Visit Variety.com to become a Variety subscriber.

You didn't answer my question. You just restated the premise -- "no one achieves success alone."

What conclusion does he mean us to draw from it? Cases have conclusions.

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

You didn't answer my question. You just restated the premise -- "no one achieves success alone."

What conclusion does he mean us to draw from it? Cases have conclusions.

If you don't have an answer, just say so.

Are you have reading comprehension problems? Or is this where if I don;t say what you want to hear, you pretend it wasn't answered. He said, yes, we succeed because of our own effort, but that we also succeed when we work together. The two are not exclusive. Again, this is not hard to grasp.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

Are you have reading comprehension problems? Or is this where if I don;t say what you want to hear, you pretend it wasn't answered. He said, yes, we succeed because of our own effort, but that we also succeed when we work together. The two are not exclusive. Again, this is not hard to grasp.

Apparently what's hard for YOU to grasp is that it's a mere truism, a premise, not a conclusion.

It's no different than saying "there are mountains in Montana." So what? What conclusion do you draw from it? Why is he bringing it up at all? He presumably said it for a reason. What reason is that?

That's the question that you apparently do not wish to delve into. Would explain why you're getting snippy about it.

 

[Travis007]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

anybody with any education on history knows Rev Al Soetero was speaking directly from Marxism...

there is nothing to debate.. Rev Al Obama showed what many of are very aware of as far as who this Marxist really is..

I laugh at those that come one here trying to defend this as " he was only talking about roads"...he was not, again he was devalueing the worker/owner to take more as far as taxes, saying its NEVER really yours..

 

[Thunder]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

anybody with any education on history knows Rev Al Soetero was speaking directly from Marxism....

who the hell is this?

 

[Travis007]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

who the hell is this?

the race baiting fraud in the Whitehouse..

 

[Thunder]

Re: "if you own a business, you didn't build it. Somebody else made that happe" -- [W

the race baiting fraud in the Whitehouse..

ah, I see. So calling him "Rev Al" isn't race-baiting?