Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Posted by circuspeanut 5 (My Page) on
Sat, Jul 21, 12 at 7:40

I'm separating this out from the ID thread for clarity, and will begin by quoting Jlhug's response to my query on his/her position.

The overall message I got from Obama's speech was an attempt to agitate the non-business owners into a anti-business owner frame of mind. His message came across as the business owners owe the rest of us a whole lot of credit and money for letting them use our roads, etc. I think he was trying to whip up more support for raising the taxes on the 1% (which I agree with) but ended up attacking the small business as well. He really downplayed the individual's efforts and risk in starting and running a business, in my opinion and that is where his message went astray. If starting a business only took the support of the rest of the nation, why doesn't everyone start a business?

Thanks jlhug, that helps me understand your perspective much better.

There are certainly things that I find annoying about that speech. For one, the internet wasn't created by the government for business, it was made for military defense using public money and co-opted by business for private profit. For another, the government IS the people, not somehow a categorical opposition to the people. I wish he'd made that more clear, and I agree that the rhetoric was ill-chosen since it fell right into the hands of listeners waiting to pounce on "the Marxist."

I can also totally see rolling one's eyes at the kumbah-yah tenor of it, which is as usual pretty over the top for someone who has repeatedly caved to big monopoly interests at the sacrifice of both small business and the average American worker. (I initially thought it was directed at an audience of a workers' union, physical laborers, who are feeling increasingly disenfranchised in our system, and thus the slant being understandable. But it was at a regular campaign stop in VA to a general audience.)

Where we differ is that I don't see that he presented it as a zero-sum game: either society gets the credit or the small business entrepeneur gets the credit. I don't read that in his words, and I suspect that's an over-sensitive interpretation. (I do get it, and as a teacher I know that when folks go off on how overpaid teachers are, with their corrupt unions, I get all riled myself. But I think it's being hypersensitive where it isn't entirely warranted.)

In statistical terms, it also seems odd to brand Obama as virulently anti-small-business (I dont think you're doing this Jlhug, but it's all over the conservative press); hasn't he passed more pro-small-business legislation in his one term than was passed in the prior 3 presidential terms? Much of this might depend on one's preconceptions about the President himself. To me, Obama isn't a raving "socialist" just itching to nationalize our industry, he's an inexperienced muddled centrist without an initially strongly-established insider cadre in Washington, barreling through as best he can with good intentions and a highly-polarized constituency.

I do suspect that with this speech, Obama's speechwriters are reacting to the current media rhetoric of business itself, which has rallied around the "job creators" theme as though this were a morally superior status. Yes, undoubtedly there's a risk that small business entrepeneurs take, and this risk is unacknowledged in that particular speech, true. Yet I'm not sure it's a superior or more morally congratulatory risk to that taken by teachers and others who work for a pittance in comparison to the expense of their training. The business owner might fail, but they also stand to gain all sorts of profit. The education professional goes in knowing that they will not profit and does it anyways, whilst paying taxes and providing a vital service upon which our society depends and rarely rewards well. From this perspective, I didn't find the speech so terrible at all, can you see where I'm coming from? Perhaps I'm being myopic in my own way.

Just as a side note, my only business-experiential comparison is to Germany, a social-democratic country, where because of government it is MUCH harder to start a small business (permitting and startup fees), yet MUCH easier to maintain it at a profit once you have (national healthcare and federally-funded leave time means vastly less operating cost). And they don't have nearly the failure rate that we do. I honestly don't know which system I prefer.

Here is a link that might be useful: the former thread on this, from which I quote


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Let's face it--the outrage is all political. Republicans just wanted to get attention off Romney's taxes (which the press had refused to drop in the weeks before this fuss), so they decided to go ballistic over this mountain out of a molehill topic--another made-up outrage of the day which, by working hard at it, they've made into the fake outrage of the week, maybe even the outrage of the fortnight! In fact, they may never forget it, not because they really care (they don't), but because they like to keep things like this in reserve so that a year from now, 5 years from now, a decade from now, when they find themselves backed in a corner politically (as Romney was over his taxes), they can whip out this essentially unanswerable topic (because they refuse all answers--answers don't fit their political purpose of "distraction" from the topic of the moment).

I don't argue this crap because it is not a real argument. If they didn't go into OUTRAGE MODE over this, they would find something else equally trivial to roar over. After all, it keeps us critics of Romney quiet and off-subject, and gets their own troops roused up and running high on righteous indignation--the most intoxicating high of all!

Kate


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Hey it's in the commercials the other way Mitt's the right way THE RIGHT WAY, THE RIGHT WAYS, HE SAID IT THE RIGHT"S WAY and he ain't OBAMA.!
LOL


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Kudos, CP. You made me smile.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

From what we keep hearing, anyone but Obama is the ticket... so Romney must be the right way, I say with sarcasm... even though he hasn't mentioned what that "way" might be. But "you people" should just wait, because you'll get exactly what Mitt and company don't have in mind...

I agree, Kate... another distraction thrown into the mix to take focus off Romney's tax returns, which no other Presidential candidate has seemed to have a problem revealing... for starters.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

The overall message I got from Obama's speech was an attempt to agitate the non-business owners into a anti-business owner frame of mind.

Exactly right.

Where we differ is that I don't see that he presented it as a zero-sum game: either society gets the credit or the small business entrepeneur gets the credit. I don't read that in his words

I agree. What he presented is that both the business owner AND society gets the credit, and that's wrong. If anything society makes it tougher to succeed in business. It doesn't contribute. If everyone made it so easy, then I'll ask the question asked above-- why isn't everyone doing it? I mean, who wants to work for minimum wage, when it's so easy to make so much more?

hasn't he passed more pro-small-business legislation in his one term than was passed in the prior 3 presidential terms?

yeah, he sure's hell passed a real good one with Obamacare. You watch and see how many businesses close their doors because of that piece of pro small business legislation.

Yet I'm not sure it's a superior or more morally congratulatory risk to that taken by teachers and others who work for a pittance in comparison to the expense of their training.

I'm sorry, but I disagree, bigtime, and that's no disrespect to teachers. Look--- once you're hired, you go to work, you do your job, you get paid. You have paid vacations, paid sick days, paid holidays, 401K, etc.. So long as you do your job well, you will continue to receive that paycheck, along with cost of living raises and benefits. Now, lets compare that to my situation. First off, there have been no raises since I started. In fact, as my operating expenses grew due to gas doubling and then tripling, my prices actually had to DECREASE on order to keep working. I can do the best work I possibly can, and yet, when things slow down, there's no one there to give me a paycheck. I get NO paid days of whatsoever-- sick, vacation, holiday-- none. No one gives the small business owner a dog gone thing, and in fact, most people want something for nothing from them.

If they didn't go into OUTRAGE MODE over this, they would find something else equally trivial to roar over.

Sorry, but as usual, I disagree completely with your premise. I don't see this as trivial. I see it as an example of Obama's mindset, which isn't trivial at all.

From what we keep hearing, anyone but Obama is the ticket... so Romney must be the right way, I say with sarcasm...

You're close. Romney's not ANYONE'S right way. But it's NOT Obama's way, and I KNOW that's the wrong way. last election, I didn't cast a vote for president because I was tired of voting AGAINST someone instead of FOR someone. I didn't like Obama, but I though McCain had proven his senililty by taking Palin as his runnung mate. But I can't sit back this time. Obama has shown himself to be not only bad for the country, but looking to completely get rid of the foundation that this country is built on, and I've got to vote against that, ,and if it means I have to deal with a clown like Romney for a few years, then so be it.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

More whinning from Bill. I've been in business/self-employed for 40 years in a business that is not very profitable and dominated by ethnics: Japanese in the early years and Hispanics since then. The government hasn't made my way easier, just added costs to labor and other aspects of doing business. But government has created the infrastructure that allow for irrigation water in this semidesert world in which I do farm and run my landscaping business.

I have no faith in the current political system: all these candidates are marginal and creatures of special interests whose interest unlikely correspond to mine. Billions of dollars are being invested in government/politics while millions of words are wasted in advocating smaller government. Ain't gonna happen. Big business and financial sectors need big governments.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Is that winning by whining?

Either way, I'm not whining, just correcting as I see it. As for the rest of your post, maybe the gov't DID help you. It didn't help me.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

What did George Bush do that made things wonderful for small businesses, Bill?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

If ya can't attack the message, attack the messenger.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

JG, he didn't do a damn thing, and as I've said dozens of times before, if the best you have is comparing yourself to Bush, you're in deep caacaa.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Bill, I don't quite understand why you think President Obama is bad for the country. As I mentioned in another thread, despite the continued and avowed opposition of a Republican congress, he's managed to pull this country out of a recession much more quickly than anyone had ever anticipated. He's ended the war in Iraq and is winding it down in Afghanistan. He bailed out General Motors, against the advice of many, and it has turned out to be a spectacular success. General Motors reciprocated by giving each of its workers some thousands of dollars in bonuses. The rate of unemployment has gone down and job creation has gone up. There has never been a hint of scandal in his personal or public life (other than what some have tried to invent). What exactly is so hateful and horrible about this man? His medical plan would benefit common people immeasurably and is no more socialist than Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare or any of dozens of social services supplied to us that we take for granted and don't even think about. Insurance companies are mega businesses that have a less than stellar record, as I think most of us would agree. He's tried to protect the environment, which at this point desperately needs it. He was saddled with an almost impossible job with at least one hand tied behind his back by Congress because of a legacy left by a truly awful prior administration. How soon people forget who the real villains in the piece were. I truly cannot grasp the magnitude of hatred for this man who is intelligent, forward thinking and I believe is working for the common man. If someone can tell me where I'm wrong (without a diatribe, and with specific examples) I would truly be grateful.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I opt in on Ingrid's questions and comments. Obama's main contributions centered around "none of the usual crowd of pols", the country chosing someone different (a person of color) but generally part of the Establishment (Harvard Law and all that background). His accomplishments have been remarkable in the face of so much Congressional opposition, remarkable even when faulted.

For the small business man, who is President doesn't really matter. My hardest years occurred during the Reagan years followed by the Bush II years. The Obama years have been reasonably good considering the Great Recession we all have endured.

Bill, the government is not out to help small businesses, only the larger corporate players and a small number of minority business people to get started, but not to thrive. I'm not in favor of government in my business; I want government out of my way. The Federal government is not the problem for small businesses, it's State and local governments even though safety and labor rules might be mandated from on high.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

bill, I was asking you that to make a point which is that Mitt Romney will continue a lot of the financial policies that Bush had in place.

This is what Obama has done so far for small businesses.

Since coming into office in January of 2009, President Obama has signed legislation that created or extended 17 small business tax cuts and credits. Several of those cuts were in three key pieces of legislation: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Affordable Care Act, and the HIRE Act. All told, these three laws contain eight different small business tax cuts, including the exclusion of up to 75% capital gains on key small business investments, a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees, and new tax credits for hiring Americans who had been out of work for at least two months.

The Small Business Jobs Act, signed by President Obama in September of 2010, had another eight tax cuts and credits in it. These included raising the small business expensing limit to $500,000, the highest ever; simplifying the rules for claiming a deduction for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for start-up expenses for entrepreneurs, and eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments.

In December of 2010, President Obama also signed a tax bill that went one step further and allowed all businesses -- large and small -- to expense 100 percent of their new investments until the end of 2011. It also extended the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business investments through the end of 2012 -- and the President's budget has proposed to make that tax cut permanent.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Just two weeks ago the "Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act" supported by President Obama was stalled in the Senate because the Republicans wanted to attach additions to it that were directed at even greater tax cuts to BIG business.

With the Republicans it's always about making sure the "Big Guy" gets the breaks.

The facts are right there to see.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

CP, I don't see where Obama presented the conflict he invented between the small business owner and "taxpayers" as a zero sum game. I think his speech served to create and heighten a conflict that may or may not have existed before.

JZ, I've seen several of those "tax breaks" come back to bite small business owners. I'm very, very cautious about using them for small businesses or new businesses.

Plus, I've never known a business to hire someone based on a tax credit, either. They don't hire someone unless they need an employee to replace one who has left the company or their business has expanded. Then, they look for the best employee, not for the one that gives them the biggest credit on their tax return for one year. That stuff sounds great on paper but has a very limited impact on hiring in my experience.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

All this hand wringing over a perfectly sensible statement that so many of all walks of life have said the same exact thing. No man is an island. It is really not that tough.

The only reason it is such an issue when Obama says it is because you all have been telling so many lies about him being a commie socialist marxist hitler etc etc that you will grasp at anything to make him fit your lies.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

CP,
Thank you for separating the topics.

With regard to what the president said, I heard him. His "you didn't build that" echoes Elizabeth Warren's earlier claim that nobody gets rich on their own.

Both she and the president credit "somebody else" for building roads and bridges, clearly putting entrepreneurs into a DIFFERENT category than the somebody elses who built roads and bridges.

Whether he was referring to building infrastructure or a business, Obama owes it to our entrepreneurs to clarify his remarks. Who didn't build what?
And when he said "somebody else did" who was he referring to?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

what a load of horse puckers

enough already

it's called a stump speech, not an address before an august body of rhetoricians.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

His "you didn't build that" echoes Elizabeth Warren's earlier claim that nobody gets rich on their own.

Well I have to say that I agree with the intention of his statement and I also agree with the sentiment as misquoted.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

what a load of horse puckers

enough already

it's called a stump speech, not an address before an august body of rhetoricians.

Exactly. that is why I have not even bothered responding in this thread.

You have people that have a desperate need to NOT look at policies that are tangible and just look for reasons of any kind, any thing. It comes down to......It does not matter. You are wasting your time.

It is said so many times there are more liberals here at HT when the truth is there are more that are not looking for a reason to not see. You call them liberals. That is how the vote will also be decided by people that want to look at issues and not Party.

So whether you are a bigot, step- n- fetch fool, have reading comprehension issue, think unless they have a R in front of their name to be right, it really does not matter. The majority of Americans are looking at issues and past performance and that majority will elect the next President.

If you do a search Romney used the same concept in his stump speech but because you want so bad to say the President was soooooo wrong if he said the sun is in the sky that statement would be "Now he is trying to make the Moon become the Sun. It is just plain stupid.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Plus, I've never known a business to hire someone based on a tax credit, either. They don't hire someone unless they need an employee to replace one who has left the company or their business has expanded. Then, they look for the best employee, not for the one that gives them the biggest credit on their tax return for one year. That stuff sounds great on paper but has a very limited impact on hiring in my experience.

which is so glaringly obvious everybody but the congress and their chorus about tax breaks for Job Creators, getting rid of capital gains and dividend taxes will miraculously lead to more jobs.

/At a net worth of roughly $250,000,000,. how many people does Romney employ?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I made some statements about President Obama and why I think he's a good president, and also wondered why some of you dislike him so much. This is the second thread in which I've said something similar and so far no one from the not-fond-of-Obama side has had any comment to make. If you dislike him so much surely you must have equally valid reasons to counteract the qualities that I like about him. You have the right to dislike him but to insult him often and strongly and then to give no good reason for doing so, and then to not educate me as to why I'm wrong about the good that I feel he's done, seems a little peculiar and also rather frustrating. If you can't justify your dislike then is it really something we should have to listen to time and time again? I would really like to hear from someone about this. If it is a matter of race, and I do not say that it is, he is half white and was raised by his white grandparents whom he seemed to love dearly and who surely had a great deal of influence over him. His white mother is an intelligent, educated woman, and no doubt his character has been formed by these three people as much as by anyone else, and probably more so. Comments, anyone?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Obama is likeable enough for a politician, less of a panderer than most and not known to be a philander either. He's been playing it safe, more or less, for three plus years in hopes of not giving his political opponents an edge to stymie his re-election. No matter. He is the enemy, too alien, too different, too friendly with the wrong crowd, too international, too autocratic and dictatorial, too diffident, and so on.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

"He is the enemy, too alien, too different, too friendly with the wrong crowd, too international, too autocratic and dictatorial, too diffident, and so on."

Yeah, and too ignorant and out of touch with reality as well with his "The economy is doing fine..." !!!!!?????

Can you imagine another 4 years of ignorance?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Ingrid ,there are crickets again. I feel exactly as you do about Obama and have since I first was aware of him. I had the privilege of working for him and seeing him three times. His life is a success story He wasn't born with a silver spoon like Bush and Romney. No one would have ever expected a black kid from Hawaii who had a rather different home life to grow up to be president. His mother saw great potential in her son. He was educated at the finest schools and married a terrific woman . I am proud that he and Michelle and their sweet daughters are our first family. I certainly don't want to regress to the depressive eight years with Bush as a Romney presidency would be.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

, Obama owes it to our entrepreneurs to clarify his remarks. Who didn't build what? And when he said "somebody else did" who was he referring to?

When Romney said "corporations are people" which people was he talking about?

Does Romney believe that he is a self-made man? How so?

Did he pay ANY taxes in 2008 or 2009?

Do his deductions for charitable donations to the Mormons exceed the amount he paid in Income tax in any of the past ten years?
How can we take this guy seriously on taxes issues when he refuses to disclose what he pays, what loopholes and tax havens he benefits from, or what countries his money is maintained in or invested in.

Do most people want a President that was in favor of letting Detroit go Bankrupt while he invested in foreign companies and kept his money in off-shore tax havens?
Do we really need a plutocrat who hides his wealth from the country that helped him make it?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

, Obama owes it to our entrepreneurs to clarify his remarks. Who didn't build what? And when he said "somebody else did" who was he referring to?

When Romney said "corporations are people" which people was he talking about?

Does Romney believe that he is a self-made man? How so?

Did he pay ANY taxes in 2008 or 2009?

Do his deductions for charitable donations to the Mormons exceed the amount he paid in Income tax in any of the past ten years?
How can we take this guy seriously on taxes issues when he refuses to disclose what he pays, what loopholes and tax havens he benefits from, or what countries his money is maintained in or invested in.

Do most people want a President that was in favor of letting Detroit go Bankrupt while he invested in foreign companies and kept his money in off-shore tax havens?
Do we really need a plutocrat who hides his wealth from the country that helped him make it?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Exactly, Lily... and Ingrid, I'm sorry to say that you're wasting your time and won't get the answers you desire... very seldom have we gotten more than crickets, or "it's his 'policies' we don't like", though nothing specific... which tends to say more than some realize.

You can drag out President Obama's list of accomplishments time and again, but you can't make people actually read them or think about them.

And rather like paddling against the current, I think he's done an amazing job considering the current he's pushing against. And sure, there are some things I'm not really thrilled about, but that's all part of it... there will never be a President who represents every single person's wishes to a tea, and that's life. You choose the person that most closely represents them in an election.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Not much time this weekend so I apologize for starting the thread and vanishing. More tomorrow. For now:

Jlhug: CP, I don't see where Obama presented the conflict he invented between the small business owner and "taxpayers" as a zero sum game. I think his speech served to create and heighten a conflict that may or may not have existed in the minds of some folks before.

That's pretty much my point: I think one reads into a politician's words what one is predisposed to read into them, the President included. Nikoleta's comment is a case in point:

Nik: Both she [E. Warren] and the president credit "somebody else" for building roads and bridges, clearly putting entrepreneurs into a DIFFERENT category than the somebody elses who built roads and bridges. Whether he was referring to building infrastructure or a business, Obama owes it to our entrepreneurs to clarify his remarks. Who didn't build what?
And when he said "somebody else did" who was he referring to?

To me this is a non-sequitur. Construction engineers build bridges and roads, entrepreneurs build small businesses. Why does stating this fact betoken something sinister about Obama?

Bill:
cp: Yet I'm not sure it's a superior or more morally congratulatory risk to that taken by teachers and others who work for a pittance in comparison to the expense of their training.

bill:I'm sorry, but I disagree, bigtime, and that's no disrespect to teachers. Look--- once you're hired, you go to work, you do your job, you get paid. You have paid vacations, paid sick days, paid holidays, 401K, etc.. So long as you do your job well, you will continue to receive that paycheck, along with cost of living raises and benefits. Now, lets compare that to my situation. First off, there have been no raises since I started. In fact, as my operating expenses grew due to gas doubling and then tripling, my prices actually had to DECREASE on order to keep working. I can do the best work I possibly can, and yet, when things slow down, there's no one there to give me a paycheck. I get NO paid days of whatsoever-- sick, vacation, holiday-- none. No one gives the small business owner a dog gone thing, and in fact, most people want something for nothing from them.

Yet if it's so horrible, why don't you drop it and get a salaried job with a tile company? Because you make a lot more money than the average teacher/tile schmoe and have more sovereignty, and to you that's worth sacrificing the (putative) security of working for someone else. It's a decision many people make, but I don't see that it merits some kind of special moral status in our system of taxation. One could just as easily say that educators are morally superior for working for peanuts in comparison to how much their education cost them, instead of using the degree to earn a lot more dosh. (I emphasize that I don't endorse this stance, either.)


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Entrepreneurs, small business, employed by bigger business, teachers, etc all take very different mind sets. One isn't better than the other, they are just different from each other. They all contribute to making our life in Canada and the US as rich as it is.

Thank goodness there are people who want to do all of the above, we need them all

....notice I did not include politicians!


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

CP, that is my point. He "planted the seeds" of a conflict where it may not have existed before and added fuel to the conflict that already exists between the "haves" and "have nots". Those words created the conflict in people who may not have thought about "who built the roads and bridges" before. It was not a speech that was going to unite anyone except for uniting the non-business owning taxpayer against the business owners. It was a speech that is going to get votes from non-business owners.

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. From my point of view, his speech was divisive. It not only fanned the flames but lit the fire where none existed before.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

CP,

Obama wanted to make a point. When some folks quite reasonably interpreted "you didn't build that" as a reiteration of Elizabeth Warren's comments, he headed for the tall grass.

He is avoiding the American people. We are entitled to clarification of his remarks. If he was misunderstood he owes it to himself, not to mention American entrepreneurs, to tell us what he was trying to say. We have waited for over a week for clarification from him. Who didn't build what, who he meant by "somebody else"and why he separated entrepreneurs from the somebody else category are questions that remain unanswered.

People who were "misquoted" don't run away from a misquote, and they don't send out surrogates to take the heat off. They man up and leave no doubt about what the said and what they meant.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

They man up and leave no doubt about what the said and what they meant.

*

I heard the speech and what Barack Obama said.

He has been lauded as one of the best communicators, one of the smartest presidents we've ever had in the media and right here on this forum.

Are we to believe in an election year he didn't mean what he said?

I am afraid manning up just isn't Obama's forte, Nic.

He is still blaming everyone else and something else for his failure to do what he said he would do.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

The culture of misconstruing statements to force fit your own belief is where we are. It is so clear what Obama is saying and it is what many many have said but yet it continues...how dishonest. This debate is not based on his statements whatsoever but your own belief systems. I thought Jonathan Chait in NY mag had a good takeaway on this...

The clear and obvious takeaway from the "you didnt build that" controversy is that its another instance of a campaign seizing on its opponents mangled syntax to accuse him of believing something he clearly does not believe. There have been several of these episodes already "you people" being the most recent and there will undoubtedly be several more.
To the extent that this latest gaffe debate reveals Something Larger, its the extraordinary hypersensivity surrounding the egos of the rich in our current political culture. The best analogy I can think of is the touchiness surrounding race and gender in the political microclimate of Ann Arbor (and other left-leaning academic environs) when I attended college in the earlier nineties. My first professional article was an account of a sociology professor who was suspended from teaching his course because he outraged his students by showing them statistics that, while true, offended them for instance, he noted that male/female earning differential could be partially explained by certain factors. (I sold the article to Reason for $500, which financed an entire summer of goofing off.) The general prevailing sentiment was that racism and sexism were such pervasive forces that any level of insensitivity on the subjects was impermissible. The slightest deviation from the approved pieties had to be couched in apologetics.

The status of the rich in our national debate today bears more than a passing resemblance. Conservatives see them, and many of the rich see themselves, as a persecuted minority helplessly outvoted by the middle-class hordes, and this sense of persecution can exist wildly out of proportion to any reality. Like the campus left, conservatives have developed a whole terminology i.e., "class warfare" to treat any discussion of subjects they prefer to avoid as a kind of hate speech. When Romney allowed that discussions of inequality ought not to be completely forbidden, but could conceivably be permitted if confined to "quiet rooms," he was expressing this same belief.

Its completely obvious from the context of Obamas remarks that he was trying to say that rich people did not build roads and other infrastructure, not that they did not build their own business. Rather than defend Romneys obvious distortion, conservatives like Jim Geraghty, James Pethokoukis, Philip Klein, and J.D. Tucille take issue with what Obama was actually trying to say: that rich people did not get rich solely due to their own talent and hard work, that, to varying degrees, they owe some of their success to good fortune and the contributions of government. They are expressing the genuine outrage of the right that lies beneath the trumped-up outrage peddled by Romney.

The outrage is that Obama would, even in the course of hailing the contributions and achievements of the rich, introduce context that in some way minimizes them. Nobody actually disputes Obamas claim that government contributes some measure toward the success of business owners. They concede it is true, even banally so. Conservatives, nonetheless, feel angry that he would verbalize it. "Maybe Obama doesnt understand how damaging and corrosive these sorts of statements and speeches, repeated over and over, might potentially be?," writes Pethokoukis. "There's something deeply disturbing in the world-view of those who would minimize the achievements of those who pursued the ideas, took the risks, invested the time and money and made things happen," insists Tucille.

In other words, they are outraged that Obama is being insensitive toward the rich. They dont use the exact term, because its a piece of phraseology associated with the left rather than the right, but its exactly what they mean.
The existence of this controversy offers an interesting window into the protected status of the rich. Republicans have embraced a vocabulary -- calling the rich "job creators" and dividing society into "makers and takers" -- that implies an extremist moral logic of market absolutism. Even mild, measured rebuttals provoke squeals of outrage. This is not limited to the political right: Even in publications like the New York Times, the complaints of rich people who feel belittled or victimized by Obama have probably received more media attention over the last four years than have, say, the collective plight of the 50 million Americans lacking health insurance. The massive economic privileges that have accrued to the rich have given rise to a widespread belief that they must also enjoy a protective cocoon of political correctness.

Our sound bite 24 hour loop culture is killing us.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

He is still blaming everyone else

Fortunately there is plenty of blame to go around.

The continued frenzy over this topic is amazing. The Republicans are playing it up as loud as they can.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

And yet post after post, nobody has answered ingrid's questions. I would also really like to know those answers.

The only conclusion one can come to is they have no answers.

Please, someone, prove me wrong and answer the question.

Bill - I agree with CP. Nobody is forcing you to run your own business with everything that comes with that. I speak from experience. My DH runs his own very small business. For him being on vacation is not the same as it is for me. I do not get phone calls from work when I am on vacation (with very rare exceptions). He does. I can forget about what is going on at work when I am on vacation. He cannot. But, the benefits outway the negatives in terms of his daily work flexibility and for us that's a big benefit. I assume for you it's the same thing. Something about running your own business is good enough that you do that instead of working for someone else. You could take the advice of one of your fellow conservative posters and just pick up and move somewhere else where the pay is better. See how easy that is (sarcasm!).


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

jill, I long ago came to understand that legitimate questions requiring thoughtful responses based on facts, or, an honest expression of what one thinks, are almost always met with silence or a sarcastic one liner.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Those without access to nor appreciation of facts are threatened by posts based on facts. You can't change many people from their set ways of seeing the world through glasses colored in slogans, adages, personal myths, or bigotry.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I doubt ingrid's question asking non-obama supporters to
step forward and list WHY they dislike him or dislike his
leadership will get much if any response.
We have ALL been there done that.

So many posts in HT are full of points and reasons involving a measure an action
a movement a comment Obama has made.

It is futile and serves no purpose other than causing another thread of 150 posts.

Regarding my lack of respect for Obama it is......
monumental and written in stone.
A waste of time to give him anymore thought other than his
leadership capabilities.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

That wasn't very helpful. Perhaps you will refrain then from further comment on posts related to Obama and save yourself some aggravation.

Me, I rarely post on topics denigrating politicians, including Rhomney. I got sucked into this one because of the weird level of unfairness, hypocrisy and venom displayed by enemies of the President. Our President, by the way, the President of all the people.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Sun, Jul 22, 12 at 12:57

You could take the advice of one of your fellow conservative posters and just pick up and move somewhere else where the pay is better. See how easy that is (sarcasm!).

*

That's the problem with liberals--they want everything to be easy! I specifically said it was not easy.

I guess that's enough to knock it off the slate for some.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

"That's the problem with liberals--they want everything to be easy!" A bit of a generalization wouldn't you say. It also speaks in a negative way to the character of liberals, something you complain about liberals doing to conservatives.

You state your opinion about liberals and their values often. How is that different than me stating my opinion?

"Just yesterday I believe it was Chase that said that all conservatives cared about was their taxes."

Facts are you do exactly what you complain others do.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I said it in response to jill, Chase.

You can say what you want, I can say what I want.

The difference is, apparently if you say it or liberals say it, it must be true.

If I say it or a conservative says it about liberals, it's not allowed.

You can't beat 'em, join 'em.

SO, since I said that taxes are NOT all that I care about, is it true that it's okay with you that picking up and moving is not easy, but sometimes a good move to make if you want to better your life?

Yes or no will suffice.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

[at least we have distracted you for days now from discussing Romneys lack of tax returns...]


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Posted by marshallz10 z9-10 CA (My Page) on Sun, Jul 22, 12 at 13:28

"You can't change many people from their set ways of seeing the world through glasses colored in slogans, adages, personal myths, or bigotry."

So true.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

"The difference is, apparently if you say it or liberals say it, it must be true.

If I say it or a conservative says it about liberals, it's not allowed. "

No Demi, it's not about the statements being allowed, or true or false, it's about you chastising others for doing exactly the same thing you do.

As for the taxes comment. I explained to you that statement was made in the context of the election campaign not in the context of anyone's total value system but apparently you choose to ignore that becasue it doesn't fit your narrative.

....and the moving thing???? No idea what you are talking about so you can pick either yes or no.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

"It also speaks in a negative way to the character of liberals, something you complain about liberals doing to conservatives."

If you want a clue to a person's character, watch how s/he treats the people with whom s/he disagrees. It will tell you all you need to know.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Our President, by the way, the President of all the people.

You mean like Bush. EXACTLY like Bush.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Yes, and I wrote that at the time.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Nik that must be a quote from the Dalai Llama right? Once you know the character of a person your sails are set and you no longer have to think about it. And since there are only two possibilities (Democrat or Republican) character labeling is easy peasy.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Nik -- in all honesty I can't see that the President "owes" a clarification to those who don't understand English grammar. The anaphors and antecedents are structurally awkward but very clear in the speech construction in question.

Grumbling because you don't think Obama is sensitive enough to the plight of the business owner is something else, and there I will agree to disagree with you and Jlhug.

Thank you for the Chait article, Maggie, that's a great write-up and also sheds some light on many above reactions in the thread, which would seem pretty silly otherwise.

The Federal government is not the problem for small businesses, it's State and local governments even though safety and labor rules might be mandated from on high.

Marshall, I thoroughly agree with you on that.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I guess Republicans and self confessed Obama haters missed the irony of Romney, a guy who was born with a silver spoon, admonishing President Obama for suggesting that the other peoples hard work and ingenuity and the structure and workings of all levels of government contribute to the success of entrepreneurs and businesses.

Do any of you consider Willard M. Romney to be a self made man? How about George W. Bush. Same thing?

This is the second weakest argument I have heard from Republicans in the past week or so to try and divert attention from Romney out-sourcing jobs and placing his money and investments overseas.

The weakest was the $10 Million dollar ad where one of Romney's sons panders to the Latino community by reminding them that his grandfather was born in Mexico.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I have again concluded that my being a member of this forum is an exercise in futility. Citywoman's colossally arrogant and condescending "answer" and Bill's total lack of an answer, in spite of his insulting language regarding President Obama, to my question of what the reasons are for the dislike of the president, have cemented my decision. This is not an equal playing field, and many of you know this and still keep on. I applaud your tenacity in the face of certain failure. I'll continue to come here at times because I find that there are educational and interesting topics, but some of the people are beyond the pale, not teachable and not reachable. Dealing with them is about as much fun as beating your head against a cement wall and equally useful. I'll continue to enjoy those of you who are bright and open-minded and funny, but just from a greater distance. Take care.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Goodbye, Ingrid. Your ideological opponents are cheering, I'm sure, your departure. Most of the thoughtful more liberal posters tend to leave (along with those thoughtful ones on the Right who likely leave for similar reasons.) This board is where the partisans hang out waiting for opportunities to slam the other side and its leadership. Human nature exposed for what it is when anonymity and gang culture meet in semi-tolerant cyber-venues.

I'm libertarian by inclination but not a Randian, more Jeffersonian democracy of small holders/yoemen and therefore non-intrusive governing. Not what we have nore are offered by the Republicrats that infest the Beltway.

So I am essentially not partisan, like to express myself and have fun at doing so often at the expense of the hyper-partisans.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

That's the problem with liberals--they want everything to be easy! I specifically said it was not easy.

I guess that's enough to knock it off the slate for some.

I thought you don't make assumptions about people?

I thought you don't say demeaning things about people?

The truth is you do. Over and over again.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Do any of you consider Willard M. Romney to be a self made man?

Mitt considers himself a self made man.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

ingrid my answer wasn't meant to be arrogant.
It was a response to your question....of sorts.

Your question is what is called a bait question from the left or from the right.

We have done this before and it gets terrible.
If I say the reason I don't like Obama is because he is
the most divisive President I have ever seen, he is a leader of one party only ,
he is a suit and nothing else,
he is rich....plays with the rich....hobnobs and caters to the rich and then
plays poor man to his base and badmouths
the movers and shakers.

He is working towards having Big Brother in every aspect of our lives and most of America completely dependent on the government which is too sad to even contemplate for the future.

I am just getting started but I will stop and take a break.
I know you probably wanted facts and figures and dates of why....when ..how....
I came to that conclusion.

Thats not necessary.
Liberals fell in love with him before he got in the WH
without any facts and figures.

Liberals fell in love with his personality.
I fell out of love with his agenda.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

CW I would respond to the issues you have stated because none of them are valid. But..... Until you admit your real issue your are right it would get ugly for you because you are not willing to admit your real problem and it will be ugly for you fighting your real reason.

I get this impression because you continue to bring up the birther stuff, that pretty much lands you in the zone. The zone of don't waste the typing time.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Sun, Jul 22, 12 at 23:16

That's the problem with liberals--they want everything to be easy! I specifically said it was not easy.

I guess that's enough to knock it off the slate for some.

I thought you don't make assumptions about people?

I thought you don't say demeaning things about people?

The truth is you do. Over and over again.

*

I do not make assumptions about specific posters and their lives and I do not tell posters what they think and I do not misrepresent what posters say--if I have a question I ask, or someone will clarify and I will correct myself.

I don't have to do that often because I don't pop off and reframe what they say with a lie.

Yes, sometimes I do make general assumptions.
We all do.

I do call out posters that misrepresent what I have said--and several have misrepresented that I said it was "easy" to pick up and move when I in fact said that it was not easy.

So I will call that fact out when I am misrepresented, especially when you admit you say it, specifically stating "sarcasm."

I don't know if it is necessarily demeaning to note that some people want things to be easy.

I suppose that would depend on one's outlook on life.

Surely it can't be, because so many people prefer life to be easy.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

It seems to me that most posters on the right simply don't understand that what they are posting is propaganda and often has no basis in fact.

Then they get in a huff and their persecution complex kicks in when people ask them for facts to support what they said.


CW, your last post above says one thing to me.
You don't like President Obama as a person.

There is nothing he could do that would be okay in your book. So why not just say that instead of pretending that it is all about the job he is doing.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Ingrid, there are some posters here who find themselves willing to engage in a real discussion on ideological differences on occasion; I recommend regarding the other contributions as Cheetos -- mildly entertaining fluff that passes through in a very short and forgettable time. This is true for any poster from any political perspective, and due to the sheer online I'm-bored-right-now entertainment factor, we all find ourselves engaging in rancorous nonsense at times.

To get the most out of the forum, I find the best strategy is to ignore all the distractions and concentrate on any poster who actually provides a content-based response to one's serious query. This thread is a case in point; I've batted about 1 in 10 in getting actual replies to the questions I proposed in the OP, but I've found those replies quite interesting and informative.*

Demifloyd, please start another thread all about you, and other posters can respond there; this navel-gazing is taking up far too much space on real threads. Thank you, everyone.



*I realize this is not an actual baseball metaphor but plead gender-based cluelessness about the Great American Pastime.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Ingrid, ..... I recommend regarding the other contributions as Cheetos -- mildly entertaining fluff that passes through in a very short and forgettable time.

They leave a weird stain on your fingers as well when you try to engage. There are many more interesting topics to explore.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

"Nik -- in all honesty I can't see that the President "owes" a clarification to those who don't understand English grammar."

One more time, CP: "If he was misunderstood he owes it to himself, not to mention American entrepreneurs, to tell us what he was trying to say."

Leaving "those who don't understand English grammar" misunderstanding his message is his choice. He gets to make that call, and I'm delighted you support his decision.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Oh yes, I'm confident that any entrepreneur who deserves to be successful is perfectly skilled at understanding English grammar.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Mitt Romney has criticized President Obama for his "you didn't build that line," when it came to businesses. The president was making an "it takes a village" argument, which the Romney campaign and conservatives have roundly panned.

But in 2002, during his speech at the Opening Ceremonies at the Winter Olympics -- the games in which Romney was lauded for turning around the management of the event -- Romney made a similar argument about Olympians.

"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power," said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year's Summer Olympics. "For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist]."

Are his comments any different?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

No. Just more political hypocrisy.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

CP - I'm sorry for participating in the "everything is all about demi" distraction. Therefore I will not respond to her last post. Oh, and by the way, demi already did that 'it's all about me' post. It filled fairly quickly!


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Posted by marquest z5 PA (My Page) on Mon, Jul 23, 12 at 0:54

CW I would respond to the issues you have stated because none of them are valid. But..... Until you admit your real issue your are right it would get ugly for you because you are not willing to admit your real problem and it will be ugly for you fighting your real reason.
I get this impression because you continue to bring up the birther stuff, that pretty much lands you in the zone. The zone of don't waste the typing time.
**********************************************************
Posted by chloe45 zone 61/2-7 (My Page) on Mon, Jul 23, 12 at 8:47

CW, your last post above says one thing to me.
You don't like President Obama as a person.

There is nothing he could do that would be okay in your book. So why not just say that instead of pretending that it is all about the job he is doing.
***********************************************************

ingrid.......now you get a sneak preview of the rebuttable. Keep in mind rebuttable means to refute by offering opposing evidence.

Marquest is trying to tell me something but I know not what (he/she thinks, he/she knows my thoughts).

chloe is telling me(because she knows my thoughts) that I just don't like him.

Hello.....You think???? Its not required I like him.
I also don't like his policies.

Now, why couldn't just one of you ...say Marquest or chloe have read my post and then just said...."ok, city, evidently you have your reasons and thank you for stepping up and posting them. You don't like him, we do.Peace."

Marquest if you don't quit trying to read my mind you are
going to get a headache :).


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Does anyone care to comment on Romney's comments at the Olympics? They didn't do it alone either ....


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Marquest if you don't quit trying to read my mind you are
going to get a headache :).

CW if I had tried to explain your real problem I would have gotten a headache which is why I did not waste the time. As I said anybody that continues to bring up the birth certificate every chance you get I am sure you have problems. I have no desire to be anywhere near your mind.

Posted by esh_ga z7 GA (My Page) on
Mon, Jul 23, 12 at 15:08

Does anyone care to comment on Romney's comments at the Olympics? They didn't do it alone either .....


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Oh wow, maybe GIANT text will help! Thanks, marquest.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Marquest. You just don't get it . Your font could be a foot tall and they'd ignore it. It's all about them ,and they will not reply to anything that remotely casts a bad light on their candidate who no one actually likes, but he's NOT Obama. >>CW's pathetic responses clear up nothing, answer no questions posted. Remember she's a birther

Ingrid ..Don't leave: we need all the help we can get here to combat the loonies..


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

There is a difference in the audience marq. Romney,speaking to athletes says All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them.

Obama was speaking to a general audience about one section of the general population (business owners).


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Citwoman said:

If I say the reason I don't like Obama is because he is
the most divisive President I have ever seen, he is a leader of one party only ,
he is a suit and nothing else,
he is rich....plays with the rich....hobnobs and caters to the rich and then
plays poor man to his base and badmouths the movers and shakers.
He is working towards having Big Brother in every aspect of our lives and most of America completely dependent on the government which is too sad to even contemplate for the future.

This reminds me of Republicans who claim they do not hate Obama because he is black, their hatred is really just because of his of policies, i.e.,, he wants to give all their tax money to the blacks.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I don't really see any difference at all. You may hate him but where would business be today without Bill Gates?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Walmart built the Interstate Highway system for their fleet of delivery trucks, not the Federal Gvt.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

The really sad thing about this, and quite frankly the same type of preoccupation with one liners from Romney, is that they distract from the real issues.

What are the real issues? It is so easy to say the economy...but what does that mean? Does it mean paying down the National Debt? Does it mean dealing with tax reform and campaign reform... I mean really dealing with it? Does it ? Why do the American people not DEMAND clear positions on the important issues?

I find it astounding that these small issues suck up all the oxygen and the really critical issues are never debated....never.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

It's because no one holds these candidates accountable when they are campaigning. Not the media, not the debate sponsors, not the American people. They don't demand the tough answers so they don't get them.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Mon, Jul 23, 12 at 13:28

CP - I'm sorry for participating in the "everything is all about demi" distraction. Therefore I will not respond to her last post. Oh, and by the way, demi already did that 'it's all about me' post. It filled fairly quickly!

*

Jillinj--I do not recall ever engaging you without you first saying something negative about me.

So, you did it again.

YOU make it about Demi, dear.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Ha ha ha. That's funny. I guess that is how you get through the day. Carry on, dear.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

"Oh yes, I'm confident that any entrepreneur who deserves to be successful is perfectly skilled at understanding English grammar."

Cool! When did you change your mind? I've believed all along that Bill Vincent understands English grammar as well as any of us.

Your use of the term "deserves to be successful" caught my attention, though. Who do you think decides if an entrepreneur "deserves" to be successful? I think consumers, free to make their own decisions, make that call. How about you?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

This reminds me of Republicans who claim they do not hate Obama because he is black, their hatred is really just because of his .... [whatever]

Been waiting for this one. If you don't like Obama you're a racist. Can't POSSIBLY be for any other reason.

If you pull the racist card at the drop of a hat, YOU'RE a racist.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

If you pull the racist card at the drop of a hat, YOU'RE a racist.

Of all people you are calling me a racist? LOL!
If you have the kind of seething hatred for Obama that you and the wife have, call Obama the antiChrist and a peckerhead, go out of your way to attack Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson when they are not even at issue, constantly try to equate racism against minorities with reverse racism, then you are in a suspect class. You probably should tone down your hatred of Obama lest you are perceived to be what you probably truly are.

You may have fooled others here but you can't fool me.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I think the word "racist" is one of those words used in a way too cavalier manner, much like the words "christian" and "bigot" are bandied about. People who slap this sort of label on other people owe it to everyone listening to make sure they understand the meanings of these words as defined in generally accepted reference books.

If you have an alternative definition of the word "racist", you should explain yourself. If not, this is what Merriam-Webster has to say:

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racismCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

So unless someone is expressing their "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race", no one should be calling anyone else a racist or telling anyone that they are in a "suspect class".

Get it straight, both of you.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

BIGOT

big-ot
   [big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Ahhhh..so bigot = liberal


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Good one, Mrskjun. Thanks for starting my day off with a smile.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I'm rubber, you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Sad.........when you do not know that you do not know. When that happens you laugh. Ignorance is bliss.

Real bigots can be distinguished from mere partisans or zealots by the fact that they refuse to learn alternatives even when the march of time and/or technology is threatening to obsolete the favored tool. It is truly said "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

"Definition of BIGOT
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

*

BINGO mrskjun.

And posts to conservatives are the PROOF.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

And posts to conservatives are the PROOF.

Over and over posts that try to explain to conservatives and

"You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much"


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

It's nearly two weeks out, Team Obama is still struggling to persuade folks he didn't mean what we all heard him say, and the damage keeps spreading.

For those reminded of Shakespere's "hoist with his own petard" but not sure exactly what a "petard" is, here you go.

"You didn't build that" is a petard of the first order.

Here is a link that might be useful: Petard


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

"You didn't build that" is a petard of the first order.

*

Amen.

I don't do bumper stickers, but I'm betting someone is printing them right now!

There's a politically incorrect poem in there somewhere.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

What are you people, 12 years old? For chrissakes, this is a discussion board for adults.


"I've believed all along that Bill Vincent understands English grammar as well as any of us."

Better than you, apparently, Nik, since Bill was not quibbling with the English but explaining his perception that the speech was insensitive to the perceived risks business owners take. I disagree, but respect that he & Jlhug have a different viewpoint. I don't really know what your viewpoint is other than wanting the President to explain his sentence structure to you. ?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Saying something that isn't true over and over doesn't change its veracity in fact what it demonstrates is a desire to somehow make it true, which works only when you are preaching to the choir.

I think a 'petard' would more accurately describe Romney's views on foreign policy which seem to be a genuinely held attitude rather than this right wing scare mongering about Obama. These views may win him a few votes but not gain him trust abroad when they come back and bite him in the azs, petard style.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

I guess we should let the Conservative have some fantasy. They have a candidate that stumbles every time he opens his mouth and speaks without a script.

I guess the Conservative have to have something to hang their hats on so they will make up anger and misunderstanding.

Liberals on the other hand are confident we do not have a need to focus on one sentence that Mitt says wrong.

But to shake your little Conservative heart memory here are a few statements there are many more. Do you remember Liberals asking for Mitt to explain what he meant when he said any of the following:

-$10,000 Bet
-I'm running for office, for Pete's sake
-Corporations are people, my friend!
-I'm also unemployed."
-Obama's peacetime spending binge

Drum roll yesterday......
-Romney says Colorado suspect obtained guns illegally

U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney made some undiplomatic criticism of London's preparations for the Olympic Games

So enjoy your flawed candidate while you can.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

and the damage keeps spreading.

Wishful thinking ....


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Ingrid, if only a conservative could have offered you as concise a list of failings or shortcomings regarding the President's failings as you did his accomplishments, then a real discussion of value could have taken place.

Chase is correct. I would be surprised if there is a forum participant here who doesn't not fall under the strict conservative label who has *not* asked for a concise list of the failings of the President which has inspired the curious "anyone but Obama" fever.

I don't get it, I just don't get it that this cannot be discussed with facts instead of outrage. I KNOW that the President and his administrations have failings and shortcomings. Why these aren't brought out when discussing this topis is beyond me - I have come to conclude that the shortcomings aren't enough to warrent the extreme conservative reaction against Obama and conservatives here know it.

What other conclusion could I come to? Citywoman's response makes absolutely no sense to me. The vague "agenda" stuff leaves me scratching my head. Specifics please, or why bother with any discussion?

Demi had frequently mentioned how frightened she is of the idea of Obama winning and then his gloves will come off and he will do what he really wants to do.

Which is what, precisely? If the deep fears of what he is sure to do according to her could only be brought out and discussed, then at the very least, if he does win, all persons here can track what it was she was fearful of and see if maybe she didn't have a good point all along regarding the damage Obama wanted to inflict upon this country.

That his failings can't be discussed line by line exactly as you presented his achievements, is a real shame - and I think a dark cloud on the conservative members of this forum.

It's too late for this thread, certainly. But I would love to see a thread started which addressed this one issue. What has been the overwhelming failings of the President and his administration which has inspired such anger and condemnation for the past three and a half years?
With precise specifics?

I do hope you will reconsider and decide to participate again, Ingrid. Thanks very much for the effort.

I understand completely if you still choose not to. After all, this and other threads where you have participated couldn't exactly inspire you to participate in the exchange of ideas since to me, the exchange with you, certainly in this thread was not even honestly attempted.

Maybe just an observation here and there, though?


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

"...Bill was not quibbling with the English but explaining his perception that the speech was insensitive to the perceived risks business owners take."

Of course Bill wasn't quibbling with the English. English wasn't the problem. The message was the problem. It was familiar. We had heard it all weeks before from Elizabeth Warren.

Obama's problem isn't that his words were taken out of context. His problem is that Elizabeth Warren had already given us the context in which his words were understood.

Americans were not too dense to discern that Elizabeth Warren's "...you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for..." was another way of saying "You didn't build that...Somebody else made that happen."

Insisting Americans must have "misunderstood" an already familiar Democrat message that came straight out of Obama's mouth is laughable. The internal polling must be as horrific as it deserves to be.


 o
RE: Obama's 'who built it really' speech, con't (Jlhug)

Way back someone asked about the difference between Obama's speech and Romney's Olympic opening ceremony speech. I've re-read each speech in its entirety and listened to each via you tube.

Romney's speech was more of a "let's thank the people who supported the athletes' speech".

Obama's was a "you used something that I paid for, so you owe me" speech. Obama started off by admonishing the rich for not paying enough in taxes and then continued with how the rich had used things they didn't pay for. If the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes, don't they pay more for the roads, bridges, etc that the bottom 90%? He tries to "soften" his message later in the speech, but the first part made more of an impression on me probably because of the stronger language, louder voice and intonations in his speech.

In my opinion, the message was very different in each speech. Believe me, I'm not in the 10% and I understand the point Obama was trying to make. I just think he did a very poor job of it in a speech that was divisive.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here