Say What!?!?!?

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweat90lx http:///t/392441/say-what/20#post_3484931
Obama wants the government to continue to get bigger and bigger. Call it socialist, Marxism, or whatever you want to. He wants everyone and every business to "need" help from the government.
Word what he said however you want, I think we all got his point.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
Just because Hannity and O'Reilly have brainwashed you into believing that nonsense, you actually think it's true?
Here' the main text of the controversial part of this speech:
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."
Please show me where in this statement he says that the businesses need GOVERNMENT help to succeed. WE as a NATION need each other's help to make a business successful. Whether it be financial assistance, assistance with procuring a place to build your business, assistance with design and developing a business process and plan, assistance with acquiring the equipment needed to run your business, assistance to find and hire employees for your business, or simply having a customer base that assists with keeping your business profitable, you need HELP is some form or fashion.

 

[sweat90lx]

I used to watch FOX news, but Hannity is way too far right wing. O'Reilly was fun to watch sometimes because he had complete control of his guests. I would not call either one of their shows news or even educational.
I enjoyed Glenn Beck's program until it ended. He did(and does) go to extremes at times with opinions of what could happen.
Your last paragraph I completely agree with. WE need each other to accomplish our dreams. I think the government wants too much control and regulations, without enough common sense and personal responsibility. They want to push their finances and their party more than doing what is right to our country.
I am not anti Obama or anti Democrat, I work for a union in the south. lol. But I think government should be limited.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sweat90lx http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3484978
I used to watch FOX news, but Hannity is way too far right wing. O'Reilly was fun to watch sometimes because he had complete control of his guests. I would not call either one of their shows news or even educational.
I enjoyed Glenn Beck's program until it ended. He did(and does) go to extremes at times with opinions of what could happen.
Your last paragraph I completely agree with. WE need each other to accomplish our dreams. I think the government wants too much control and regulations, without enough common sense and personal responsibility. They want to push their finances and their party more than doing what is right to our country.
I am not anti Obama or anti Democrat, I work for a union in the south. lol. But I think government should be limited.
LOL! It's easier to demonize Fox News which you may or may not watch than to debate actual issues.
Hannity was entertaining when he was doing the show with Colmes but he's monotonous to listen to on his own.

 

[mantisman51]

I only watch O'Reilly(on occasion) and the hard news. You know who irritates me most is the morning folks. He's probably a nice guy, but that Deucy(?) acts like he took a few too many fastballs to the head. I'm sure I agree politically with Hannity probably 80-90%, but he and Beck drive me nuts. Hyperbole has never been something I could get into...except when I use it.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485021
LOL! It's easier to demonize Fox News which you may or may not watch than to debate actual issues.
Hannity was entertaining when he was doing the show with Colmes but he's monotonous to listen to on his own.
The only reason I reference Fox News is because every talking point, and every argument that's used to counter something Obama does, comes straight fom someone on that channel verbatim.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485117
The only reason I reference Fox News is because every talking point, and every argument that's used to counter something Obama does, comes straight fom someone on that channel verbatim.
Like I said, blame Fox rather than try to defend your position.

 

[sweat90lx]

I dislike Colmes more than Hannity. lol. That dude is way out there, but Beck can stretch things pretty far also. Beck did expose some people in 0bama's admin that have bad intentions for our country though.
I dislike 0bama for the same reason I disliked Dubyah, they have went way beyond what our government should be controlling. Our national debt cannot be repayed unless drastic changes are made. I dont see that being corrected any time soon and it will continue to grow.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485119
Like I said, blame Fox rather than try to defend your position.
I've defended my position so many times with you, you just choose to ignore reality. Interesting people still slam Obama for making these statements, but when RINO Romney did the same thing, people stayed eerily silent..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/18/1111399/-Mitt-Romney-says-entrepreneurs-need-government-to-start-businesses

 

[sweat90lx]

If 0bama meant the same thing Romney said in his, speech his teleprompter should have fixed that. Im sure he and many others proofread the speech before he made it.
In my opinion, 0bama was saying we need government to accomplish anything and was his way of saying we need more government. I think we need less government to be successful.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485380
I've defended my position so many times with you, you just choose to ignore reality. Interesting people still slam Obama for making these statements, but when RINO Romney did the same thing, people stayed eerily silent..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/18/1111399/-Mitt-Romney-says-entrepreneurs-need-government-to-start-businesses
LOL! What Romney said was accurate. What 0bama did was spent about 3 minutes talking about how being smart and working hard isn't what makes people successful. Read the transcript.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485481
LOL! What Romney said was accurate. What 0bama did was spent about 3 minutes talking about how being smart and working hard isn't what makes people successful. Read the transcript.
How is this:

There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepenuers and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That's an important thing.

And this:
I know that you recognize that a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There's no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help

Any different that what Obana said? Think you're reading the Fox News version of Obama's speech.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485505
How is this:

There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepenuers and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That's an important thing.

And this:
I know that you recognize that a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There's no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help

Any different that what Obana said? Think you're reading the Fox News version of Obama's speech.

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
Is that not word for word what 0bama said? Please point out where Romney said anything like that.

 

[darthtang aw]

How is this:
There are a lot of people in government who help us and allow us to have an economy that works and allow entrepenuers and business leaders of various kinds to start businesses and create jobs. We all recognize that. That's an important thing.
And this:
I know that you recognize that a lot of people help you in a business. Perhaps the banks, the investors. There's no question your mom and dad. Your school teachers. The people that provide roads, the fire, and the police. A lot of people help
Any different that what Obana said?  Think you're reading the Fox News version of Obama's speech.
Yes.
"Let me ask you this. Did you build your business, if you did raise your hand."
Romney acknowledged business owners built THEIR BUSINESS.
Obama said, "If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that." referring to their business. You guys are trying to spin it to imply his usage of "That" was in reference to his previous sentence about roads and bridges. However....if he was referring to the roads and bridges, he would have used the word "those", not "that".

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485535
Yes.
"Let me ask you this. Did you build your business, if you did raise your hand."
Romney acknowledged business owners built THEIR BUSINESS.
Obama said, "If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that." referring to their business. You guys are trying to spin it to imply his usage of "That" was in reference to his previous sentence about roads and bridges. However....if he was referring to the roads and bridges, he would have used the word "those", not "that".
He was referring to the ROADS AND BRIDGES, not busineses. READ THE LINE BEFORE HE SAID THAT ONE.
EXACTLY. If he would've changed the word from "that" to "those", this statement would've never been blown out of proportion. He gets chastised because of using ONE WORD in the wrong context. Did you criticize Bush everytime he made some stupid blunder in a speech?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485507
I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
Is that not word for word what 0bama said? Please point out where Romney said anything like that.
Yea he said it, so what? It was a statement in general. Just because you think you are smart, or you work hard developing your business, doesn't always equate to a successful business. I know a lot of smart people who thought they could start a business, tried it, and they failed miserably. I know people who worked as hard as they could to keep their business viable and profitable, but weren't able to do so becuase of a poor market strategy, or they simply didn't know what they were doing. Who knows what else Romney has said about government and businesses. He pretty much stated the same things you're railing Obama about, but want to ignore those. You're nitpicking to try and prove some point.

 

[darthtang aw]

He was referring to the ROADS AND BRIDGES, not busineses.  READ THE LINE BEFORE HE SAID THAT ONE. 
EXACTLY. If he would've changed the word from "that" to "those", this statement would've never been blown out of proportion.  He gets chastised because of using ONE WORD in the wrong context.  Did you criticize Bush everytime he made some stupid blunder in a speech?
He was referring to the ROADS AND BRIDGES, not busineses.  READ THE LINE BEFORE HE SAID THAT ONE.  If he would've changed the word from "that" to "those", this statement would've never been blown out of proportion.
If he would have used the CORRECT word "those" he would not have been referring to businesses. For being a great speaker and an educated man, it is amazing to me that he used the wrong word as this is being spun.

 

[darthtang aw]

Yea he said it, so what? It was a statement in general. Just because you think you are smart, or you work hard developing your business, doesn't always equate to a successful business.  I know a lot of smart people who thought they could start a business, tried it, and they failed miserably.  I know people who worked as hard as they could to keep their business viable and profitable, but weren't able to do so becuase of a poor market strategy, or they simply didn't know what they were doing.  Who knows what else Romney has said about government and businesses.  He pretty much stated the same things you're railing Obama about, but want to ignore those.  You're nitpicking to try and prove some point. 
Romney is not saying the business owners didn't build their business themselves.....unlike Obama. Obama is also implying the government is needed for business to run and be successful, thus if business is successful that means government was successful.
This gives a great explanation of why Obama, and Romney to an extent, are wrong about some of what they said.
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 19
“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
— Barack Obama,
And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.
To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.
Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.
Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.
The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives.
More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.
The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.
What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia’s world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived. It’s a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all- giving government of bottomless pockets and “Queen for a Day” magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she’s on her own is at her grave site.
Julia’s world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She’s married to the provider state.
Or to put it slightly differently, the “Life of Julia” represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.
Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.
Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485589
Romney is not saying the business owners didn't build their business themselves.....unlike Obama. Obama is also implying the government is needed for business to run and be successful, thus if business is successful that means government was successful.
This gives a great explanation of why Obama, and Romney to an extent, are wrong about some of what they said.
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: July 19
“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
— Barack Obama,
And who might that somebody else be? Government, says Obama. It built the roads you drive on. It provided the teacher who inspired you. It “created the Internet.” It represents the embodiment of “we’re in this together” social solidarity that, in Obama’s view, is the essential origin of individual and national achievement.
To say that all individuals are embedded in and the product of society is banal. Obama rises above banality by means of fallacy: equating society with government, the collectivity with the state. Of course we are shaped by our milieu. But the most formative, most important influence on the individual is not government. It is civil society, those elements of the collectivity that lie outside government: family, neighborhood, church, Rotary club, PTA, the voluntary associations that Tocqueville understood to be the genius of America and source of its energy and freedom.
Moreover, the greatest threat to a robust, autonomous civil society is the ever-growing Leviathan state and those like Obama who see it as the ultimate expression of the collective.
Obama compounds the fallacy by declaring the state to be the font of entrepreneurial success. How so? It created the infrastructure — roads, bridges, schools, Internet — off which we all thrive.
Absurd. We don’t credit the Swiss postal service with the Special Theory of Relativity because it transmitted Einstein’s manuscript to the Annalen der Physik. Everyone drives the roads, goes to school, uses the mails. So did Steve Jobs. Yet only he created the Mac and the iPad.
Obama’s infrastructure argument is easily refuted by what is essentially a controlled social experiment. Roads and schools are the constant. What’s variable is the energy, enterprise, risk-taking, hard work and genius of the individual. It is therefore precisely those individual characteristics, not the communal utilities, that account for the different outcomes.
The ultimate Obama fallacy, however, is the conceit that belief in the value of infrastructure — and willingness to invest in its creation and maintenance — is what divides liberals from conservatives.
More nonsense. Infrastructure is not a liberal idea, nor is it particularly new. The Via Appia was built 2,300 years ago. The Romans built aqueducts, too. And sewers. Since forever, infrastructure has been consensually understood to be a core function of government.
The argument between left and right is about what you do beyond infrastructure. It’s about transfer payments and redistributionist taxation, about geometrically expanding entitlements, about tax breaks and subsidies to induce actions pleasing to central planners. It’s about free contraceptives for privileged students and welfare without work — the latest Obama entitlement-by-decree that would fatally undermine the great bipartisan welfare reform of 1996. It’s about endless government handouts that, ironically, are crowding out necessary spending on, yes, infrastructure.
What divides liberals and conservatives is not roads and bridges but Julia’s world, an Obama campaign creation that may be the most self-revealing parody of liberalism ever conceived. It’s a series of cartoon illustrations in which a fictional Julia is swaddled and subsidized throughout her life by an all- giving government of bottomless pockets and “Queen for a Day” magnanimity. At every stage, the state is there to provide — preschool classes and cut-rate college loans, birth control and maternity care, business loans and retirement. The only time she’s on her own is at her grave site.
Julia’s world is totally atomized. It contains no friends, no community and, of course, no spouse. Who needs one? She’s married to the provider state.
Or to put it slightly differently, the “Life of Julia” represents the paradigmatic Obama political philosophy: citizen as orphan child. For the conservative, providing for every need is the duty that government owes to actual orphan children. Not to supposedly autonomous adults.
Beyond infrastructure, the conservative sees the proper role of government as providing not European-style universal entitlements but a firm safety net, meaning Julia-like treatment for those who really cannot make it on their own — those too young or too old, too mentally or physically impaired, to provide for themselves.
Limited government so conceived has two indispensable advantages. It avoids inexorable European-style national insolvency. And it avoids breeding debilitating individual dependency. It encourages and celebrates character, independence, energy, hard work as the foundations of a free society and a thriving economy — precisely the virtues Obama discounts and devalues in his accounting of the wealth of nations.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Nothing but more semantics. Obama says that you businesses didn't directly build roads and bridges, and this guy puts a 3 paragraph spin on it. Romney said essentially the exact same thing, and you pander, "That's not what he meant." You live with these blinders on that you will rationalize an argument any way you can to make Obama out more than he is.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392441/say-what/40#post_3485588
If he would have used the CORRECT word "those" he would not have been referring to businesses. For being a great speaker and an educated man, it is amazing to me that he used the wrong word as this is being spun.
Blah, blah, blah. And if Romney would've used the right words in Israel, or in London, or in several other speeches he's put his foot in his mouth... If Bush would've used the correct words in a multitude of speeches he made, as well as Clinton, as well as Carter, as well as Bush 1, etc., etc.,etc. It's been validated what he meant, and people still keep whining about it.

 

[darthtang aw]

.  Obama says that you businesses didn't directly build roads and bridges,
That is not what he said ....lol....that is how it is trying to be spun. If that was his intention he would have just came out and corrected it himself...instead he is trying spin it just as you are. Will affect the election? no.