Obama's, "Oops! Thats not what I meant to say."

[swansont]

Maybe after viewing, listening to and trying to understand the videos I posted, I should have said:In my opinion?

 

Opinions are one thing. Facts are another. Selectively quoting someone to remove the context is not an expression of an opinion. So no, saying that doesn't help.

[rigney]

And this is why the US is having such trouble these days. Conversations like these are not at all uncommon throughout the populace, and "both sides" are not equally worthy of blame.

If I may ask: What does ("both sides" are not equally worthy of blame), meant to infer? Edited July 30, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

Tell me, why should I have to verify a statement voiced by our president that you and I both witnessed and heard. Because of the context of the first tape he got ripped. On the second he tries reexplaining himself by doing a little soft shoe shuffle using a different verbiage as an explination.

Verify?

 

What I'm asking you to do is to explain your position. Period. That's all. I'm asking you to explain exactly what you mean when you say that what the president said is "bullshit". You have never explained exactly what you mean.

 

So I reiterate:

1) Do you think that Obama was referring to infrastructure when he said "you didn't build that"? Yes or no first - then why.

 

2) Do you think that what we say Obama said - that owners of businesses did not build the infrastructure (roads and bridges) - is "bull squat"? Yes or no first - then why.

 

3) Do you think that what we say Obama's point was - that since business owners used infrastructure and did not get to where they are on their own, they should contribute back to society for their use of the infrastructure - is "bull squat"? Yes or no?

 

4) Do you think that Obama's point was what I just said we said it was? Yes or no first, then why.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

DH, Much more thanks are owed to liberals than conservatives. The groups that work hardest to protect my right to freedom of speech, my right to vote, my right to a fair trial: Liberals. The groups that work hardest to constrain speech, constrain people's right to vote, constrain trials: Far right conservatives. Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

Is this not total bias?

[uncool]

Is this not total bias?

Nope. It's a statement about historical fact that may or may not be true. Instead of assuming bias, you could ask him to substantiate what he said.

=Uncool-

[Phi for All]

Is this not total bias?

Who is out there trying to legislate what women can do with their bodies? Who is out there combing through voter registrations looking for tiny discrepancies so they can keep people from voting? Who is out there trying to restrict people from being tried in civilian courts when Congress hasn't declared war with anyone? It's not really simple bias when the proof is in the deeds and the deeds are all over the news.

[rigney]

Verify?

 

What I'm asking you to do is to explain your position. Period. That's all. I'm asking you to explain exactly what you mean when you say that what the president said is "bullshit". You have never explained exactly what you mean.

Yes, I think his speech was total BS. To hear his exact words, I believe he was being underhanded to those wanting to start a business.

 

So I reiterate:

1) Do you think that Obama was referring to infrastructure when he said "you didn't build that"? Yes or no first - then why.

I think when he first started his speech that's exactly what he was referring to, the individual. Becomong aware of his FU he then changed it to infrastructure.

2) Do you think that what we say Obama said - that owners of businesses did not build the infrastructure (roads and bridges) - is "bull squat"? Yes or no first - then why.

 

3) Do you think that what we say Obama's point was - that since business owners used infrastructure and did not get to where they are on their own, they should contribute back to society for their use of the infrastructure - is "bull squat"? Yes or no?

The word infrastructure has been worn thin over 400 years, beginning with indian and animal trails. Trying to use it in sidestepping his original dissertation to me is laughable,

4) Do you think that Obama's point was what I just said we said it was? Yes or no first, then why.

Likely that may have been his intent, it just didn't come out that way.

=Uncool-

[uncool]

You missed question 2 entirely, and your response to question 3 is not an answer. Further, I did ask you multiple times to first state "yes or no", and only then to give an explanation.

 

I think when he first started his speech that's exactly what he was referring to, the individual. Becomong aware of his FU he then changed it to infrastructure.

Then why was he talking about the infrastructure beforehand? Further, why had he already said "Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own." The clear intent is not to say that the individual had done nothing, but that there were other factors than just the individual.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

Again, what are you responding to in my post? Your post seems to have literally nothing to do with what I asked you.

 

1) Do you think that Obama was referring to infrastructure when he said "you didn't build that"? Yes or no first - then why.

 

2) Do you think that what we say Obama said - that owners of businesses did not build the infrastructure (roads and bridges) - is "bull squat"? Yes or no first - then why.

 

3) Do you think that what we say Obama's point was - that since business owners used infrastructure and did not get to where they are on their own, they should contribute back to society for their use of the infrastructure - is "bull squat"? Yes or no?

 

4) Do you think that Obama's point was what I just said we said it was? Yes or no first, then why.

=Uncool-

The word infrastructure has been around as long as there have been animal and pony trails. I suppose the indians were first in this country to use infrastructure, making canoes for the rivers and foot trails for their horses and travois. Then white man come! Him bring toll roads, taxes, inns and beer joints. Yes, Obama may have been right, but the way he expressed it means that he definitly could use better speech writers. Edited July 30, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

Yes, I think his speech was total BS. To hear his exact words, I believe he was being underhanded to those wanting to start a business.

 

Ah, so the issue here is comprehension.

 

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

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

 

Most here recognize that in "you didn’t build that", "that" refers to roads and bridges, and the "American system" he previously referenced. Given the nature of the whole quote, it should be pretty clear.

 

So, what exactly is BS about that? Do individual businesses build their own roads and bridges?

[rigney]

Ah, so the issue here is comprehension.

 

Most here recognize that in "you didn’t build that", "that" refers to roads and bridges, and the "American system" he previously referenced. Given the nature of the whole quote, it should be pretty clear.

 

So, what exactly is BS about that? Do individual businesses build their own roads and bridges?

No, but like those of us who pay taxes, they (business owners) do so as well. Yet, their taxes are not restricted to a single pay check; but taxes on construction, payrolls, transportation cost and equipment, heating and cooling and insurance for their workers. Should I go on? Edited July 30, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

Yes, Obama may have been right, but the way he expressed it means that he definitly could use better speech writers.

Actually, I don't think that part was written for him at all. I agree with Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), I think he was ad-libbing to include some points from Elizabeth Warren's earlier speech on a similar subject. But Warren's speech was more modeled after paying your fair share of taxes, so it didn't sync as well. I don't agree with Sen. Brown that Warren's speech was "bad advice". I think Sen. Brown is used to walking on eggshells when it comes to alleged "job creators", and I think those job creators DO owe a lot to what the taxpayers have helped fund, and what they get a disproportionate amount of benefit from.

 

Regardless, I think the President's way of expressing it may have needed polish, but it's a far cry from the hysterical "Bullshit!" you and others have been trying to pin on him. "He could have said it better" is not equal to "complete lies".

[swansont]

No, but like the rest of us who pay taxes, they do as well. Yet their taxes are not restricted to only a single pay check, but taxes on construction, payrolls, transportation cost and equipment, heating and cooling. Should I go farther?

 

Depends. Are you still trying to make the case that what Obama said was BS? And are you prepared to call Romney on saying basically the same thing, as I indicated earlier?

 

Businesses pay taxes on equipment, heating and cooling? Taxes are paid on profits. Depreciation of equipment means you can write off the expenditure.

[rigney]

Depends. Are you still trying to make the case that what Obama said was BS? And are you prepared to call Romney on saying basically the same thing, as I indicated earlier?

 

Businesses pay taxes on equipment, heating and cooling? Taxes are paid on profits. Depreciation of equipment means you can write off the expenditure.

Yes, after all is said and done, a company pays its taxes on product sold.If I were to say Romney was a boob, would that make you any happier? Romney spoke to a group of athletes who have lived under their Mom and Dads wings since birth. Romney is not a sitting president as of yet. Obama is; and should conduct himself above such rhetorical gobbledegook.

.

Edited July 30, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

Rigney, you still have yet to answer my questions 2 and 3. And please, don't forget to answer yes or no, and then to explain why.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

Ah, so the issue here is comprehension.

 

 

 

Most here recognize that in "you didn’t build that", "that" refers to roads and bridges, and the "American system" he previously referenced. Given the nature of the whole quote, it should be pretty clear.

 

So, what exactly is BS about that? Do individual businesses build their own roads and bridges?

In fact some do. Things like, timber, coal, minerals and other resources. Over time they will eventually be using the national infrastructure of which you speak. But financing their business ventures doesn't have a damn thing to do with government, left or right, other than when a defunct auto company or banking business or one of thes wacky wind and solar venture have gone sour. That's when Big G steps in. But fall on you sword (ass) as an entrepreneur, it's just tough shit. But make a buck, and that's when big government wants their chunk of change.

 

Nope. It's a statement about historical fact that may or may not be true. Instead of assuming bias, you could ask him to substantiate what he said.

=Uncool-

I didn't assume anything but only asked a question. But to you my question seemed to be more than just a question? Edited July 30, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

I didn't assume anything but only asked a question. But to you my question seemed to be more than just a question?

Yes, it did. Because your immediate response was to ask about bias, rather than to ask him to substantiate; further, the way your question was phrased indicated that you do think that what he said was biased.

 

Do you want him to substantiate what he has said?

=Uncool-

[Phi for All]

But financing their business ventures doesn't have a damn thing to do with government, left or right, other than when a defunct auto company or banking business or one of thes wacky wind and solar venture have gone sour.

Many businesses get loans through government agencies like the SBA. Others get state, local and even federal tax breaks depending on what they qualify for. So it does have a damn thing to do with government very often.

 

You know, you keep acknowledging that businesses actually do owe much of their success to the American system, but then you keep going back to calling bullshit on what Obama said. It's pretty clear to everyone reading this that you have a problem with the President that overrides your judgement. I've had problems with every president I can remember since I was of voting age, but I've always acknowledged when they did a good job on something. And I've never allowed my feelings to force me on a baseless witch-hunt that ignores facts and reason.

 

I'm sending you a catalog for Grips-R-Us, 'cause I think you need to get one.

[swansont]

In fact some do. Things like, timber, coal, minerals and other resources. Over time they will eventually be using the national infrastructure of which you speak. But financing their business ventures doesn't have a damn thing to do with government, left or right, other than when a defunct auto company or banking business or one of thes wacky wind and solar venture have gone sour. That's when Big G steps in. But fall on you sword (ass) as an entrepreneur, it's just tough shit. But make a buck, and that's when big government wants their chunk of change.

To take a phrase from you: Bull Shit.

 

I take it you've never heard of the small business administration, who make loans to small businesses.

http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/loans-grants/

 

There are also tax-exempt bonds, and programs from the government for loan guarantees. Also, the fact that small businesses are given preferential treatment when competing for government contracts. State and local governments cut deals to businesses moving in to their area, including grants and tax breaks.

 

So yeah, other than that and some that I've undoubtedly missed, the government does nothing to help entrepreneurs.

[rigney]

Many businesses get loans through government agencies like the SBA. Others get state, local and even federal tax breaks depending on what they qualify for. So it does have a damn thing to do with government very often.

 

You know, you keep acknowledging that businesses actually do owe much of their success to the American system, but then you keep going back to calling bullshit on what Obama said. It's pretty clear to everyone reading this that you have a problem with the President that overrides your judgement. I've had problems with every president I can remember since I was of voting age, but I've always acknowledged when they did a good job on something. And I've never allowed my feelings to force me on a baseless witch-hunt that ignores facts and reason.

 

I'm sending you a catalog for Grips-R-Us, 'cause I think you need to get one.

I have an inkling that you don't like me, even a little bit? Should I be looking for another forum to join up with? You're tough! Edited July 30, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

I have an inkling that you don't like me, even a little bit? Should I be looking for another forum to join up with? You're tough!

rigney, absolutely none of what I respond with is intended to be personal, not for you or ANYBODY. I always try to attack the ideas, not the people who have them. If it seems like I've made any of this personal, I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to.

 

I do like it better when folks explain what they mean by what they say, and back up assertions with supportive evidence. Sometimes emotions color what we think, and that's what science tries to minimize. With politics though, it's more often opinion, and sometimes that makes it seem like disagreement is more personal.

 

And don't try to leave 'cause we'll hunt you down and duct tape you to your computer if we have to. Everyone needs conflicting viewpoints, otherwise you may as well be a compound in Waco. I think you've got big brass ones to jump up and down on the right side of our political seesaw, what with so many of us here sitting more on the left side. I like you just fine.

[dragonstar57]

rigney, absolutely none of what I respond with is intended to be personal, not for you or ANYBODY. I always try to attack the ideas, not the people who have them. If it seems like I've made any of this personal, I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to.

 

I do like it better when folks explain what they mean by what they say, and back up assertions with supportive evidence. Sometimes emotions color what we think, and that's what science tries to minimize. With politics though, it's more often opinion, and sometimes that makes it seem like disagreement is more personal.

 

And don't try to leave 'cause we'll hunt you down and duct tape you to your computer if we have to. Everyone needs conflicting viewpoints, otherwise you may as well be a compound in Waco. I think you've got big brass ones to jump up and down on the right side of our political seesaw, what with so many of us here sitting more on the left side. I like you just fine.

regardless quote mining should be called out whoever is doing it. the claim that Obama meant anything other than that business owners didn't do it by themselves is obviously wrong if you listen to what he said. this stuff does nothing for the right but make them look foolish and weaken their credibility, right leaning people should get just as annoyed about this left leaning people.

it doesn't mater what party does it or what party you are part of you should be kind of mad if this method becomes highly used tool.

 

ps. wtf is with the font? it is in like tinny text mode!

Edited July 30, 2012 by dragonstar57

[rigney]

rigney, absolutely none of what I respond with is intended to be personal, not for you or ANYBODY. I always try to attack the ideas, not the people who have them. If it seems like I've made any of this personal, I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to.

 

I do like it better when folks explain what they mean by what they say, and back up assertions with supportive evidence. Sometimes emotions color what we think, and that's what science tries to minimize. With politics though, it's more often opinion, and sometimes that makes it seem like disagreement is more personal.

 

And don't try to leave 'cause we'll hunt you down and duct tape you to your computer if we have to. Everyone needs conflicting viewpoints, otherwise you may as well be a compound in Waco. I think you've got big brass ones to jump up and down on the right side of our political seesaw, what with so many of us here sitting more on the left side. I like you just fine.

In all honesty, I must apologise. That post was actually meant for swansontea. He gives me such a hard time and in jest I was responding only because the guy is head and shoulders intellectually over me. I'm an average hill billy who has been for the most part a democra for half of my life. If you have followed any of my posts it should be evident. I don't hate people on either side of politics, but only try to understand what I believe at the moment. And yes, my prospective changes from time to time. Again, I do apologise. Edited July 30, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

If I may ask: What does ("both sides" are not equally worthy of blame), meant to infer?

It means that despite the false attempts at equivocation we continually see when this topic comes up, both sides are not equally to blame for the shattered nature of the political discourse we face each day in the US right now.

 

While the left wing is hardly free from blame for silliness and nonsense, the right wing of the political spectrum has pushed crazily through the former boundary of our political spectrum and given new depth and breadth and commonality to the extremism of our politics. We don't even really have a political spectrum anymore. We have a right, a far right, and a batshit crazy right, sprinkled with a tiny handful of liberals and lefties. The right wing (and really even those like yourself who think you're some "middle of the road centrist") have become unbearably unreasonable, intensely irrational, and irrefutably infantile...

 

It has become nearly impossible to deal with one another like mature adults anymore.

 

Let's face it... We have some fairly serious challenges to address as a country and as a planet right now, yet we can't even agree on basic facts or get answers to simple yes or no questions. Evasion has come to rule the day, and the new status quo is replete with endless misrepresentations of the reality before us, bald lies, spin, and McCarthy-esque propaganda, witch hunts, and red scares over every innocuous non-issue.

 

We're desensitized to the crazy, habituated to the irrationality, and unresponsive to the harm we are doing to ourselves and to our collective futures.

 

We spend practically every waking second in our political discourse doing nothing more than battling back endless flows of asinine, painfully stupid, and obviously false bullshit like "Obama is a secret socialist marxist nazi muslim kenyan who hates america and wants to kill business!!1!!2!!one!!cheese!!!"

 

We have dropped the level of political discourse in our country so profoundly that we can't even BEGIN to HOPE to work our way forward... we can't even start to take steps to protect our civilization... we can't even initiate efforts to actually work together on those great many countless areas where we truly have consensus, where we truly have needs, and where we truly could do real and permanent good.

 

We spend so much time doing little more than drowning out the endless noise from the zombie-like banshee extremist right wing asshats that fill our airwaves... that litter the internet... that invade essentially every aspect of our lives... including our fracking fast food restaurants... that we wind up completely ignoring practically everything that truly matters when it comes to governing a modern country and dealing with modern challenges in this modern world.

 

That's what I mean by "both sides are not equally to blame." Yes, neither side is perfect. No, the problems we face don't come equally from both. One side is very much ruining it for everyone.

[Phi for All]

In all honesty, I must apologise. That post was actually meant for swansontea. He gives me such a hard time and in jest I was responding only because the guy is head and shoulders intellectually over me. I'm an average hill billy who has been for the most part a democra for half of my life. If you have followed any of my posts it should be evident. I don't hate people on either side of politics, but only try to understand what I believe at the moment. And yes, my prospective changes from time to time. Again, I do apologise.

Ah, a case of, "Oops! That's what I meant to say but not who I meant to say it to."