Hey, Liberals: Obama said small business owners didn't build their own businesses!

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Bunch of fools you all are. Gamoto is the ringmaster. "Here, let me start a thread featuring the chopped-up words of the President to make him sound like a socialist". And then all the sheep come in to go baa, baa.

In the full speech (and not the still-shortened excerpt posted in this thread), Obama is pretty far into a long campaign speech when this portion comes up. He credits the great American system we have for educating a smart business owner, and references the American infrastructure (roads, internet) as enablers necessary for a business to be successful.

He specifically refers to roads when he says "if you're a business owner, you didn't build that". He is NOT referring to the business itself; that's a result of the editing.

His point is unambiguous and simple - the government provides infrastucture for the benefit of American citizens, from roads to teachers to internet, and these benefits are not only essential to individuals, but business owners as well. "We succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." I think he's adequately sucking up to small business owners, no?

No.

No amount of spin is going to save this argument for any person able to logically deduce anything. He wasn't referring to roads, if so he wouldn't have sited teachers etc. He meant what he said. It wasn't even thinly vailed, his disdain for those of even modest success.

[txz4]

[u2b]http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/114954.html[/u2b]

2 minutes and forty seconds worth of all of us not understanding i guess thats over two times as long and alas it still reads the same way. I feel as though the ones who were being mislead by the media are those same people pointing the fingers at others...

[smohr33]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Bunch of fools you all are. Gamoto is the ringmaster. "Here, let me start a thread featuring the chopped-up words of the President to make him sound like a socialist". And then all the sheep come in to go baa, baa.

In the full speech (and not the still-shortened excerpt posted in this thread), Obama is pretty far into a long campaign speech when this portion comes up. He credits the great American system we have for educating a smart business owner, and references the American infrastructure (roads, internet) as enablers necessary for a business to be successful.

He specifically refers to roads when he says "if you're a business owner, you didn't build that". He is NOT referring to the business itself; that's a result of the editing.

His point is unambiguous and simple - the government provides infrastucture for the benefit of American citizens, from roads to teachers to internet, and these benefits are not only essential to individuals, but business owners as well. "We succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." I think he's adequately sucking up to small business owners, no?

The government doesn't provide the infrastructure for American citizens, American citiziens provide it (or at least the 50% that pay their taxes).

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by txz4

No.

No amount of spin is going to save this argument for any person able to logically deduce anything. He wasn't referring to roads, if so he wouldn't have sited teachers etc. He meant what he said. It wasn't even thinly vailed, his disdain for those of even modest success.

Then you have a serious lack of comprehension, or you just want to believe your own propaganda. There is no spin, none. He said "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." That is roads and bridges. That's why he uses somebody in both sentences. If you listen to his emphasis and inflection in his speech, it would reinforce this.

The only "disdain" is what you have for objectivity. You have voiced your unfounded, unsupported-by-facts claim about Obama over and over. Go start a blog, but keep it out of here.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by smohr33

The government doesn't provide the infrastructure for American citizens, American citiziens provide it (or at least the 50% that pay their taxes).

Duh, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know that.

Oh and good job regurgitating the bullshit 50% figure!

[cssnms]

Speaking of bullshit, does anyone smell that???

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by cssnms

Speaking of bullshit, does anyone smell that???

So your tactic is to declare that you're not capable of debating, by making infantile posts. Just what I'd expect from you.

Hey, isn't it time for you to start a few more threads with bold yellow exclamation points?

[Templar]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

So your tactic is to declare that you're not capable of debating, by making infantile posts. Just what I'd expect from you.

Hey, isn't it time for you to start a few more threads with bold yellow exclamation points?

So this post ...

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Duh, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know that.

Oh and good job regurgitating the bullshit 50% figure!

... is somehow different?

[RupertPupkin]

Obama is a communist.

[cssnms]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Duh, thanks for clearing that up. I didn't know that.

Oh and good job regurgitating the bullshit 50% figure!

I have a high tolerance for a lot of things, but speaking to morons isn't one of them -- notice I did not say "debate" because there is no debating with the likes of you, you've made it explicitly clear it's your way or no way.

I thought you were leaving anyhow. Just trying to get everyone's hopes up?

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by smohr33

The government doesn't provide the infrastructure for American citizens, American citiziens provide it (or at least the 50% that pay their taxes).

So, the people who actually pay taxes enable that to happen then, there's no "asphalt fairy" who comes in the middle of the night to provide this service for free?

And yet, those who pay no income taxes, and thus contribute an incredibly miniscule fraction of all tax dollars collected (only via sales tax, etc), get to enjoy those roads just the same as those who actually pay the lions share of the cost of them ? Wow, that sounds like a good deal.

I know if it wasnt for the infrastructure that business owners foot most of the bill for, then my employer wouldnt exist, and I wouldnt have a job. Fortunately those of us (including me) who are NOT 1%-ers realize that expensive stuff that makes our lifestyle possible is all subsidized heavily by others. At least some of us realize how good we have it, last thing you need is to create incentives for the "financial enablers" to take their ball and play somewhere else, especially considering that never in history has it been easier, and more lucrative, to do so.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Then you have a serious lack of comprehension, or you just want to believe your own propaganda. There is no spin, none. He said "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." That is roads and bridges. That's why he uses somebody in both sentences. If you listen to his emphasis and inflection in his speech, it would reinforce this.

The only "disdain" is what you have for objectivity. You have voiced your unfounded, unsupported-by-facts claim about Obama over and over. Go start a blog, but keep it out of here.

Because i know comrade scotch doesn't have any problem at all with taking political speeches or anything else for that matter at more than face value, this wont be directed at him. For everyone else, here is my take spelled out line by line. (from the link i posted, 2:40 seconds worth of speech).

Clip starts with him talking about raising taxes for the wealthy, switches into this: "they know they didn't ah ah. Look, if you've been successful, you didn't, you didn't get there on your own." Im sorry, i didnt realize the mortgage taken out by so many to fund the business they run is signed by the gov. as being responsible.

He goes onto say its not because you're smarter or harder working than others. then goes into "if you were successful, someone along the line gave you some help, there was a great teacher somewhere....blah blah" Lets evaluate this line shall we? By following his line of thought here, if you are successful someone MUST NECESSARILY have helped, furthermore it was other people that created your success. Certainly not you.

Then sites the American system, roads etc (no problems there). Then attributes all of those things i had no problem with, with business NOT having built them. Business pays employees who pay taxes, and corporate taxes, these things fund the gov. No one else.

then says "government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet" -LOL

"the point is: when we succeed, we succeed because of our ah ah indi ah ah individual initiative, but also because we do things together"

"we don't fight fires on our own" "theirs some things we do better together" Insinuating that the government is better, our reason for success, using firefighting to frame the argument. Like saying because 1+2=3 are all numbers, 4 is also a number therefore 1+4=3... its a fallacious argument due to its generality.

"that's how we created the middle class" How? firefighting? working together? Government? He sited only governmental things and then says that how we created the middle class. This implies that the government is responsible for the middle class. I always knew on middle class peoples paychecks its signed by the government....wait. Its not.

"we rise or fall together as one nation, and as one people, and that is the reason im running for president. You're not on your own. were together"

Always thought we were a nation of individuals? but in the words of Pink Floyd. "All we are is just another brick in the wall"

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by Templar

So this post ...
... is somehow different?

I'm not sure why you're making the comparison, but you're comparing cssnms's non-response to my posts, with my sarcastic "yes, I know that gov't spending comes from our taxes".

[txz4]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

So, the people who actually pay taxes enable that to happen then, there's no "asphalt fairy" who comes in the middle of the night to provide this service for free?

And yet, those who pay no income taxes, and thus contribute an incredibly miniscule fraction of all tax dollars collected (only via sales tax, etc), get to enjoy those roads just the same as those who actually pay the lions share of the cost of them ? Wow, that sounds like a good deal.

I know if it wasnt for the infrastructure that business owners foot most of the bill for, then my employer wouldnt exist, and I wouldnt have a job. Fortunately those of us (including me) who are NOT 1%-ers realize that expensive stuff that makes our lifestyle possible is all subsidized heavily by others. At least some of us realize how good we have it, last thing you need is to create incentives for the "financial enablers" to take their ball and play somewhere else, especially considering that never in history has it been easier, and more lucrative, to do so.

Here's something i dont get. We all have access to the same roads. We all have public school paid for. Apparently according to Obama we aren't more successful for being smarter or harder working. What is it? its everybody else that makes us succeed? How, if everyone else is just as dumb and unsuccessful? And what about the people who don't succeed? they failed because other people held them down?

If you take any of what he said to its conclusion you're left with a whole lot of whhhaaaat????? how?????

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by txz4

Because i know comrade scotch doesn't have any problem at all with taking political speeches or anything else for that matter at more than face value, this wont be directed at him. For everyone else, here is my take spelled out line by line. (from the link i posted, 2:40 seconds worth of speech).

Clip starts with him talking about raising taxes for the wealthy, switches into this: "they know they didn't ah ah. Look, if you've been successful, you didn't, you didn't get there on your own." Im sorry, i didnt realize the mortgage taken out by so many to fund the business they run is signed by the gov. as being responsible.

He goes onto say its not because you're smarter or harder working than others. then goes into "if you were successful, someone along the line gave you some help, there was a great teacher somewhere....blah blah" Lets evaluate this line shall we? By following his line of thought here, if you are successful someone MUST NECESSARILY have helped, furthermore it was other people that created your success. Certainly not you.

Then sites the American system, roads etc (no problems there). Then attributes all of those things i had no problem with, with business NOT having built them. Business pays employees who pay taxes, and corporate taxes, these things fund the gov. No one else.

then says "government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet" -LOL

"the point is: when we succeed, we succeed because of our ah ah indi ah ah individual initiative, but also because we do things together"

"we don't fight fires on our own" "theirs some things we do better together" Insinuating that the government is better, our reason for success, using firefighting to frame the argument. Like saying because 1+2=3 are all numbers, 4 is also a number therefore 1+4=3... its a fallacious argument due to its generality.

"that's how we created the middle class" How? firefighting? working together? Government? He sited only governmental things and then says that how we created the middle class. This implies that the government is responsible for the middle class. I always knew on middle class peoples paychecks its signed by the government....wait. Its not.

"we rise or fall together as one nation, and as one people, and that is the reason im running for president. You're not on your own. were together"

Always thought we were a nation of individuals? but in the words of Pink Floyd. "All we are is just another brick in the wall"

No, wrong. As always. It's really as simple as I showed. Really. You overanalyze everything to the nth degree with your preconceived disdain for the guy. You're not stating facts, this is just a biased interpretation by you. Thanks for calling.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by txz4

Here's something i dont get.

First honest statement you've made.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

No, wrong. As always. It's really as simple as I showed. Really. You overanalyze everything to the nth degree with your preconceived disdain for the guy. You're not stating facts, this is just a biased interpretation by you. Thanks for calling.

Point out one biased thing. I based everything i wrote on the same principles one would use on a mathematical proof. And since when the hell is analyzing things to its conclusion a bad thing?! When you create systems for jets do you just program things based on what you want to happen? or do you also think of the things that your program may have effected outside of the initial problem along with how and why its solving your problem? For instance, in medicine, if a Doctor just diagnosed early stage cancer that can easily be separated from the skin, the doctor doesn't say, "well, i guess were going to take the leg" the cost isnt worth the benefit.

Say a plane your working on is having instability caused by the landing gear, if you didn't think further than just the problem, one would simply just remove the landing gear.

I have no problem with the guy personally. His policies are insane and damaging. Furthermore hes spreading an ideology that is very damaging to progress.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by cssnms

I have a high tolerance for a lot of things, but speaking to morons isn't one of them -- notice I did not say "debat" because there is no debating with the likes of you, you've made it explicitly clear it's your way or no way.

I thought you were leaving anyhow. Just trying to get everyone's hopes up?

What's "debat"?

Look, if you'd rather call me names and make implied farting sounds instead of actually addressing my posts, go ahead, loser. But you're not fooling anyone by running away from me and just starting more threads, you scared little neocon.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

What's "debat"?

Look, if you'd rather call me names and make implied farting sounds instead of actually addressing my posts, go ahead, loser. But you're not fooling anyone by running away from me and just starting more threads, you scared little neocon.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by txz4

I'm trying to incite him.

As far as Obama's speech, it's really as simple as I explained. His point is that all of us, including business owners, use and benefit from the gov't services that our taxes pay for. He is NOT saying that others are responsible for your success, or that you're not smart or hard working.

[bolinp78]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

I'm trying to incite him.

As far as Obama's speech, it's really as simple as I explained. His point is that all of us, including business owners, use and benefit from the gov't services that our taxes pay for. He is NOT saying that others are responsible for your success, or that you're not smart or hard working.

For some reason "biased interpretation" was the first thing that came to mind, I'm not really sure why though..

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by txz4

I have no problem with the guy personally. His policies are insane and damaging. Furthermore hes spreading an ideology that is very damaging to progress.

THIS. Obama actually seems like an engaging, charismatic friendly guy who would be interesting to talk to at a dinner party. So is Jim Carrey. Keep them both far away from fiscal policy.

Comrade Scotch does not realize that outsouring is a legitimate concern for many of us who dont have jobs working on systems for F16's, thus making it almost impossible to transfer overseas for a variety of security reasons, regardless of cost effective it might be to do so.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more it explains a lot of things... if everyone was suckling at Uncle Sams teat (albeit indirectly at a Military contractor), then everyone might probably be a big fan of Obama's Gov before Business approach too, especially if their work would be almost impossible to ship outside the country.

The wealthy folks who own your engineering firm probably CANT ship your job elsewhere no matter how badly Obama taxes them. They'll just raise prices, and since the main market for F-16's is not subject to the same normal market conditions as most goods, they dont have to compete against cheaper, Chinese-made F-16's from Walmart down the road. Isolation from the very harsh realities of an open global marketplace can certainly impair one's ability to see the real danger of making an environment not business-friendly.