Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.
Speech content remains the same, only soundbite changes
Published on August 4, 2012 By taltamir In Politics

Lets assume for a second that perhaps obama meant "roads and bridges" aka "those" when he said "that".

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

Then becomes:

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. This is a putdown of the intelligence of successful people. Making lights of their efforts, and suggests they are arrogant for having dared to think they deserve some form of credit for their success.

It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. This is a putdown of the work ethic of successful people. Making lights of their efforts, and suggests they are arrogant for having dared to think they deserve some form of credit for their success.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. Makes light of the fact that people are responsible for their own success.

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. pandering to teacher unions

[If you were successful...] Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build those roads and bridges. Somebody else made those roads and bridges happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. Your success is entirely due to the government having allowed you an "amazing american system" and the infrastructure of roads, bridges and the internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. whoa, a slight mitigation there, he actually admitted that individual initiative at least plays a component there... But then he clarifies that an equal part of it is "doing things together" which based on the rest of the speech means "government"

if we assume obama's claim of having meant roads and bridges to be true, only the soundbite changes (from "you are not responsible for building your business") and the actual of the content and meaning of the speech remains identical!


Comments
on Aug 04, 2012

reserved

on Aug 05, 2012

No, it becomes "You didn't build the roads and bridges (and power and internet and ect.) that your business needs, we all built that".  Which is correct, America built our infrastructure together with everybody's taxes, including business.  Not to mention all the huge construction companies whose bread n' butter is municipal infrastructure projects...how many people do we employ in order to keep our infrastructure going?  Dunno, too lazy to look it up, but whopping boat-loads.  That's a fact.

on Aug 05, 2012

No, it becomes "You didn't build the roads and bridges

That is the premise of the argument here... If we choose to concede that this is what it meant, then what does the rest of the speech say.

And I went line by line and showed what it said. Do you have any intelligent counter argument or are you just going to repeat that premise and completely ignore the rebuttals?

on Aug 08, 2012

You know, for days now I've tried to muster the "give a rat's ass" to rebut your cynical and melodramatic reading of the President's speech point by point...but what for?  I mean you're clearly invested in skewing his words as far out of acceptability as possible, so good luck with that.  I also see why you're focusing on things like this, tactically speaking.  I mean, if you didn't have President Obama's speeches to rip apart and be silly about then you'd be stuck talking about Romney, and who wants to try to polish up that turd?  You know, that goes a long way to explaining a lot of the continuation of the crazy Birther stupidity I bet.  Huh, a serendipitous moment.  

on Aug 08, 2012

TheFunkMaster
I mean you're clearly invested in skewing his words as far out of acceptability as possible, so good luck with that.

No.  It's not that far.  As in superimposed.

You're just as determined to pretend you 'know' what he meant.  And refusing to accept the absurdity of your 'interpretation' even when it is conceded (for purposes of argument only, of course).

It's a completely specious argument to use in support of raising taxes, which was what he was arguing for.

on Aug 10, 2012

TheFunkMaster
You know, for days now I've tried to muster the "give a rat's ass" to rebut your cynical and melodramatic reading of the President's speech point by point...but what for?  I mean you're clearly invested in skewing his words as far out of acceptability as possible, so good luck with that.  I also see why you're focusing on things like this, tactically speaking.  I mean, if you didn't have President Obama's speeches to rip apart and be silly about then you'd be stuck talking about Romney, and who wants to try to polish up that turd?  You know, that goes a long way to explaining a lot of the continuation of the crazy Birther stupidity I bet.  Huh, a serendipitous moment.  

You want to talk romney?

Romney is a moderate leaning slightly conservative in fiscal policy and leaning left in social policy... much better then an extremist like obama. Actually it would have been perfect if it wasn't for his left leaning social policy negatively impacting his fiscal policy. (devil is in the details; in this case the how)

Romney, at bain capital, bought bankrupt companies that would go out of business and fire everyone and tried to save them. When he succeeded he made money and saved countless jobs.

Romney, suggests cutting taxes accross the board, with the biggest cuts going to the most poor. He is suggesting upholding the bush tax rates which are twice as large for the poor as for the rich, then cutting taxes to reagan levels for the rich and about half of reagan's levels for the poor (15% was lowest bracket under reagan, romney suggests it be 8%).

Romney gave the super lib state of massechusets its socialized healthcare as demanded by its citizenry... a very liberal move but  I don't have to live there. On a national level though obama is trying to force all states to implement the same things no matter how conservative and opposed to it they are, while romney vowed to repeal and leave healthcare choices such as that to the individual states.

Anything needs polishing about romney is his left leaning bits which made him my least favorite choice (my first was santorum). He is an establishment republican, but he is a million times better then obama. I am guessing what you mean when you said polish is all the liberal nonsense such as "turn over your tax returns" or "you fired people at bain capital!" or other such nonsense.

The most important thing about romney though, is that he wont veto everything coming out of the republicans like obama would, and that he would enforce the law.

Obama is using presidential fiat and appointment power to either flat our order the law broken, or appoint people who order it broken. Impeachable offense but the liberal congress will not do anything.

If we win both house and senate but keep obama we will not be able to get anything done unless we have a super majority. This could very well mean the end for america. But if we have romney then we need fewer senators and congressmen to get things done. Veto is a very useful power.

on Aug 10, 2012

The liberal congress will impeach the president if it will get them re-elected.

on Aug 10, 2012

Jythier
The liberal congress will impeach the president if it will get them re-elected.

If they know for sure, then those who are more corrupt then ideologues would.

But their behavior until now doesn't suggest that they believe they would be voted out. Obama's imperial amnesty for illegals is lauded and supported by them. Requiring voter ID, with the government covering the cost of getting it, is claimed to be racist poll taxes. What do we do when the dead, pets, and illegals vote? Or when people vote more then once?

on Aug 10, 2012

I vote early, and I vote often.

 

Or my car breaks down and I don't make it to the polls.

Meta
Views
» 553
Comments
» 9
Category
Sponsored Links