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

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by txz4

Thus you having help is the reason you are successful, all things being equal.

That is not a true statement of logic, hence your continuing to have a problem with this. And your use of "responsible" to summarize is also not logical.
I never had any problems or confusion about what he said, so you may drop this at any time.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by mspeasl

Then why don't you start a positive thread about Mr O and break that cycle of none contribitution. Or is there nothing positive..?

Over the past year, I've made innumerable posts listing exactly what he's accomplished. I don't feel the need to make threads about it, like the front page of a tabloid newspaper.

It's the insecurities of the thread starters that compels them to declare their thoughts in a new thread.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

That is not a true statement of logic, hence your continuing to have a problem with this. And your use of "responsible" to summarize is also not logical.
I never had any problems or confusion about what he said, so you may drop this at any time.

on What grounds? because you say it's not. you're wrong Scotch. just wrong. simple as that.

[Simple3]

Wow... love these Conservatives hate Obama and Liberals hate Conservatives... give it a f@#king rest... vote for whoever you are going to vote for and stfu...

[yakev724]

This thread is a testament to just how sick the political "discussion" is both on these boards and all across the nation.

Take this statement by Obama. He made the error of saying something which could so easily be taken out of context and provide justification for his ridicule, in the ears of conservatives. The discussion isn't about the actual required level of fiscal policy (as it should be), but rather false criticism by those clinging onto a misquoted line from a speech.

Then of course the Romney campaign molds that misquote (to maximum ill effect) into a campaign ad, which in my eyes, is about equal to a blatant lie (and it wouldn't be the first). Much like Gamoto's first post itt (convenient break in quotes, don't you think?)




What we should be doing is picking apart recent CBO reports and how each party's proposed policies might play out, considering some historical context. I guess no one wants to do any meaningful analysis when it's so easy to shout across the isle...

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by txz4

on What grounds? because you say it's not. you're wrong Scotch. just wrong. simple as that.

Logic, can't you read? Every statement has an inverse, a converse, and a contrapositive. The statement "successful people had help" has the inverse "unsuccessful people didn't have help", the converse "people who don't have help are unsuccessful", and the contrapositive "people who had help are successful". The converse is always true. You are proposing the contrapositive which is not true in this case.
An example would be, "you need a computer to get onto the internet". The converse "no computer, no internet" is true. But the contrapositive "you'll get on the internet if you have a computer" is not true, because you need an ISP and a modem etc.

In short, you're transposing Obama's statement to come to a false conclusion.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by Simple3

Wow... love these Conservatives hate Obama and Liberals hate Conservatives... give it a f@#king rest... vote for whoever you are going to vote for and stfu...

I'd love to, but the teabaggers keep starting threads with bullshit claims.

[MisterSkiMask]

Obama is saying that the good student didn't earn his grade because he had a teacher and a book.

Ridiculous

[yakev724]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

I like to think that Obama is saying that the good student didn't earn his grade because he had a teacher and a book.

ftfy

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

Ridiculous

.

[txz4]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Logic, can't you read? Every statement has an inverse, a converse, and a contrapositive. The statement "successful people had help" has the inverse "unsuccessful people didn't have help", the converse "people who don't have help are unsuccessful", and the contrapositive "people who had help are successful". The converse is always true. You are proposing the contrapositive which is not true in this case.
An example would be, "you need a computer to get onto the internet". The converse "no computer, no internet" is true. But the contrapositive "you'll get on the internet if you have a computer" is not true, because you need an ISP and a modem etc.

In short, you're transposing Obama's statement to come to a false conclusion.

The last time im going to point out that what i said is not what you are arguing. I said, "Thus you having help is the reason you are successful, all things being equal"-me

Three times in this thread ive gone back to previous quotes to prove whatever argument you have incorrect. Im not doing it again, perhaps you have the reading problem.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by yakev724

ftfy

I assure you, that is not what I 'like' to think, or hear.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

Obama is saying that the good student didn't earn his grade because he had a teacher and a book.

No. You are saying that. He's saying that the American school system had to be there to provide the education. Nobody's saying that people "didn't earn" anything.

It's really amazingly simple, especially considering that probably all of us have benefitted from a good education. There are places in the world (and right here) where a quality education is not available.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by txz4

The last time im going to point out that what i said is not what you are arguing. I said, "Thus you having help is the reason you are successful, all things being equal"-me

And for the last time I'm pointing out that you are misinterpreting Obama's statement. Nobody said "having help is the reason you are successful". Saying that successful people have had help is not the same as saying that help is THE REASON. How much simpler can I make it?

A web designer can create a fantastic website, but the internet is needed to put it out there. However, nobody would say that the internet is THE REASON the website is good, but that's exactly what you're doing. Just substitute "help" for "internet", and "successful" for "fantastic website".

Also, the "all things being equal" phrase makes no sense, because there aren't two groups of equally smart people: smart people who got a good education and smart people who didn't get a good education. The premise of Obama's statement is that all smart people got a good education, so I don't see what things there are to be equal.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

No. You are saying that. He's saying that the American school system had to be there to provide the education. Nobody's saying that people "didn't earn" anything.

It's really amazingly simple, especially considering that probably all of us have benefitted from a good education. There are places in the world (and right here) where a quality education is not available.

People become blind and deaf when politics are involved, you can’t hear the words because you want ‘your team’ to win, and you want to be ‘right’.

Let’s break it down (I’ll paraphrase, but not slant the message):
Roads and bridges, if you’ve got a business you didn’t build that – That is the school in my analogy.

You think you got there because you worked harder – I think the good student would say ‘absolutely’ – there are a whole bunch of hard working people out there – Maybe they are hard working, but ineffective.

You think you’re just so smart – The good student would say ‘I may be smart, but I also show up to class and focus on the material that is important to do well in the class.

Somebody helped you – The good student may say ‘I stayed after class and the teacher helped me figure out what I was doing wrong’ or ‘A couple other students and I formed a study group’ or ‘My mom helped me understand’ etc – This should not take away from the students accomplishments. The student figured it out.

Small business owners ‘figure it out’ using the same tools and resources that are (and here’s the important part) available to everybody. The business owner/creator may not be the smartest guy in the room, or the hardest working but he managed to see a void and used his smarts and hard work efficiently to fill it.

It is clear that Obama is pandering to a group of C and below students in this speech.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by MisterSkiMask

It is clear that Obama is pandering to a group of C and below students in this speech.

I agree with everything you said until this last line. It was just a regular campaign stop, you know, just people from the area, old and young, all that stuff.
Obama is clearly making the supporting argument for how taxes and the gov't are essential to everyone, not just individuals, but small business owners also. The American entrepreneurs who are smart, innovative, and business savvy didn't get that way by watching Hogan's Heroes for 12 years. It came from a good education in (presumably) public schools.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

I agree with everything you said until this last line. It was just a regular campaign stop, you know, just people from the area, old and young, all that stuff.

'C' is average, you agree with everything I said

[txz4]

lets see. if we want a three and we have a 2, we need one to make 3. If we dont have one we have everything else we need to make three but the one. Therefore the +1 is responsible for the 2 becoming a 3 (success) compared to the 2 without the one (fail).

The two still was a two on both sides, but the lack of the +1 given already having a two means the lack of +1 is responsible for not having a 3 (success)

Basic stuff here. Im not sure why you don't get it. You used a black and white term, i did not. Your black and white term is wrong.

[cssnms]

...

[ScotchAndCigar]

Originally Posted by txz4

lets see. if we want a three and we have a 2, we need one to make 3. If we dont have one we have everything else we need to make three but the one. Therefore the +1 is responsible for the 2 becoming a 3 (success) compared to the 2 without the one (fail).

The two still was a two on both sides, but the lack of the +1 given already having a two means the lack of +1 is responsible for not having a 3 (success)

Basic stuff here. Im not sure why you don't get it. You used a black and white term, i did not. Your black and white term is wrong.

The 1 doesn't make 3 by itself, so you're still wrong.

[MisterSkiMask]

Originally Posted by cssnms

...

I am no fan of Obama, but they did a shady job of editing that clip. The worst part is that they didn't have to, his speech and comments in context are bad enough.

[cssnms]

....

[128vertinnoho]

Originally Posted by cssnms

...

The best part about this......the guy that stars in that clip was on Cavuto's show and said he basically AGREES with what Obama was saying in his speech!! Mittens really does have inept people working on his campaign!!