Obama - If You've got a business, you didn't build that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT
 

Stagnant:

major28:

Seanchaidh:

What would be their business model?

That would be a better question for them, lol.

No, it's actually crucially important. It's one of those things that never get thought through closely in the objectivist "every man for themselves" world, and one of those little things that the government needs to do. Y'see, it's not just those who can afford to hire a private police force or protector who need the type of legal protection the police can provide, and only the very richest among us can actually afford it... Unless we band together into a type of government. Overall selfishness is most often incredibly short-sighted. Which ties into my later point:

major28:

Stagnant:

Rand is a hack, and her philosophies are a great way to make the world a more uncaring, unsustainable place. I have no respect for objectivists, as it seems to be a philosophy built around justifying sociopathy.

Yeah that really unstable place where people pay for the things that they want, look out for there own self interest, no human rights are violated, and the best of society run the show. Your right sounds like sociopathic ideas to me.

That sounds a nice place... In Rand's dreams. As has been pointed out multiple times throughout history, the Randian Utopia is a fantasy. A place that never has existed. The closest we've gotten, historically, to an Objectivist society, is the Gilded age, and let me explain why that actually makes a lot of sense:

major28:
Have you read any of Ayn Rand's work because that is the not at all how the idea works. A big part of it is not exchanging favors and only trading in value; virtue for virtue. Under this system exploitation is impossible. Trade and employment is only achieved between two consenting parties, if someone doesn't want to sell their land or work for a certain price they are free not to. Also if someone has a different set of priorities then good for them, they can go ahead and pursue them. And finally anyone who has less opportunities because of where they were born can move for a modest price.

Reducing things to just what people agree to in terms of value trades does not remove exploitation. I don't have to take that job at the mill; I could just let my family starve to death. I don't have to accept the subhuman conditions; I could just try to negotiate with a boss who knows that I can easily be replaced by any number of other people. Or quit my job, try to find a job in a job market which is almost always lopsided in favor of those who want labor, rather than those who provide it. You want to claim that that's not exploitative? Not likely to happen. A lack of care about others leads entirely in that direction.

I disagree completely that this is exploitation. The reason that these jobs wouldn't/don't pay much is that innately not valuable. There is a huge supply of labor because these jobs can be handled by anyone with a work ethic and a 4th grade education and, according to the basic economic principles of supply and demand, that makes them not pay very much. To force someone to pay more for labor that they could for cheaper is ACTUAL exploitation. Not to mention that the very concept of paying someone more than their worth is madness, to do so is to live in a fantasy world where jobs in wood mill are worth more than they actually are, but that just isn't reality. You can say an apple is an orange all you want but when you squeeze it you won't get orange juice.

Amnestic:

Charles_Martel:

I apologize that President Obama made such an ignorant quote. I'm sure you are going to be sick of seeing the phrase in the months to come. Maybe Obama can save you the aggravation by relying on teleprompters in the future so he doesn't make a similar boneheaded statement.

So your clever strategy is to quote mine and then make a teleprompter joke.

You didn't answer my question though: How much faith do you really have in your own views if the only way you can see to win is to intentionally misquote and misrepresent your opponent?

I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

If President Obama wants to run on his record instead engaging in clumsy class warfare attacks let him. I hope he does. Obama gets to define himself and make the case why he deserves four more years or he can make boneheaded statements about other subjects either way his own words damn him.

Charles_Martel:
I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You intentionally tried to make it sound like he was saying "If you've got a business, you didn't actually build that business yourself", which is not what he was saying at all.

That is a textbook example of misrepresentation and quote mining.

Everybody can see this, you're not fooling anyone.

Elcarsh:

Charles_Martel:
I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You intentionally tried to make it sound like he was saying "If you've got a business, you didn't actually build that business yourself", which is not what he was saying at all.

That is a textbook example of misrepresentation and quote mining.

Everybody can see this, you're not fooling anyone.

Maybe the Obama campaign can hire you. Then when Obama makes an off-the-cuff speech afterwards you can tell the crowd/media what his actual words meant.

Charles_Martel:
Maybe the Obama campaign can hire you. Then when Obama makes an off-the-cuff speech afterwards you can tell the crowd/media what his actual words meant.

It's over, my friend. Everyone realizes that the clip was misleading, and you're not fooling anybody.

Charles_Martel:

Elcarsh:

Charles_Martel:
I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You intentionally tried to make it sound like he was saying "If you've got a business, you didn't actually build that business yourself", which is not what he was saying at all.

That is a textbook example of misrepresentation and quote mining.

Everybody can see this, you're not fooling anyone.

Maybe the Obama campaign can hire you. Then when Obama makes an off-the-cuff speech afterwards you can tell the crowd/media what his actual words meant.

Yes because a speech is a twelve second partial sentence, and that's all the context you need, dammit!

Charles_Martel:

Amnestic:

Charles_Martel:

I apologize that President Obama made such an ignorant quote. I'm sure you are going to be sick of seeing the phrase in the months to come. Maybe Obama can save you the aggravation by relying on teleprompters in the future so he doesn't make a similar boneheaded statement.

So your clever strategy is to quote mine and then make a teleprompter joke.

You didn't answer my question though: How much faith do you really have in your own views if the only way you can see to win is to intentionally misquote and misrepresent your opponent?

I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

Then why didn't you include all the context for the 12 second clip you posted?

Charles_Martel:
If the President wanted to make the argument that a businessman used public resources to create a business why didn't he say "If you got a business, you built it with the help of public resources."

If the president wanted to make the argument that business-owners had no hand in the creation and propagation of their own businesses, don't you think he would have excluded the line about how individual success is crucially important? Don't you think it would be ever so slightly more telling if it wasn't completely out of tune with everything else he, as a person, has been promoting and pushing? Yes, he could have phrased it better. But he made it very clear through the context what he meant, and you're still grasping at straws in order to misrepresent him. Cut the crap.

Only someone who doesn't respect the hard work and effort to create a business would make the quote Obama made.

Only someone who doesn't respect the intelligence of the escapist community would try to misrepresent the quote Obama made like that. But, because you apparently missed it in my first response, HE MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT HE RESPECTED THE HARD WORK AND EFFORT NEEDED TO CREATE A BUSINESS LATER IN THE SPEECH:

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative

Huh. Imagine that. The president isn't a complete out-of-touch whacko. More than we can say about the guy running for office.

Also the quote is illogical. Would McDonalds be around without Ray Kroc, Apple without Steve Jobs or Facebook without Mark Zuckerberg. If they didn't create the businesses who did?

HE NEVER SAID THIS.

Buddy, cut the crap. We've explained what the quote means multiple times; we've made it very clear that when the president said "you didn't build that", the subject in question was not the small businesses, but rather things like the internet and the roads. Which they didn't. I mean, do you deny that that what he was saying was "you didn't build the roads and internet", or are you sticking to your claim in the OP?

The correct answer here is "I'm sorry, I fell for an obvious and rather silly quote mine, thread over". Not "Ha! Technicality! This is obviously what the president is REALLY trying to say, context be damned!" And I'm not just talking about the context of the speech, but the context of this campaign. The context of Obama as a person. NOTHING he's done has pointed to this sort of idea. At all. In fact, most of his campaign ideas have pointed in exactly the opposite direction. So in order to push this idea, you have to ignore not just the clearly stated context of the speech, but everything else we know about the guy. And, as Amnestic pointed out, the fact that you had to cut off literally all but a 12-second snippet of his speech to make your point anywhere close to salient is rather telling. Would anyone have caught on to this if it wasn't mined out? If you were analyzing this speech for an 8th-grade level literature course, and this is the result you came up with, you would not get a passing grade.

Context. It's important. For example, here's some political advice, taken directly from you.

Piss off the small business owners of America. That's a winning strategy.

Obviously, you have no idea about politics, as this is so incredibly wrong, it's not even funny, so we shouldn't bother ever listening to you or anything you say ever again on the subject. ^_^

Charles_Martel:

Elcarsh:

Charles_Martel:
I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You intentionally tried to make it sound like he was saying "If you've got a business, you didn't actually build that business yourself", which is not what he was saying at all.

That is a textbook example of misrepresentation and quote mining.

Everybody can see this, you're not fooling anyone.

Maybe the Obama campaign can hire you. Then when Obama makes an off-the-cuff speech afterwards you can tell the crowd/media what his actual words meant.

Except that's not what we're doing. We're giving you (and only you) a crash course in basic literature analysis. I'm left wondering why any of this is foreign to you (and only you) - is it because you're being dishonest? Or are you just really, really bad at reading?

major28:
I disagree completely that this is exploitation.

All right, you have a choice. Suck my dick or starve to death.

Now, I'm definitely not exploiting your terrible situation for my own pleasure, I'm simply offering you a choice! You can take it or leave it!

Do you understand why I dislike objectivism now? What word would you use for people stuck in a situation where the market will work them to the bone and to the death and just barely give them enough to get through the day, and the option of quitting simply doesn't exist because the only thing waiting for them there is homelessness and starvation? I mean, exploitation seems like such a harsh word, doesn't it? Oh wait, it was designed to explain exactly this kind of situation, where those in a worse financial position are left with no real options other than to do what those in a better financial position want for scraps. It's the reason we have those minimum wage laws (which I'm sure you consider soooo coercive). It's the reason we have unions. The fact that the employer-employee relationship is so often so incredibly lopsided is essentially the basis upon which objectivism falls apart at the seams.

Charles_Martel:

Elcarsh:

Charles_Martel:
I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You intentionally tried to make it sound like he was saying "If you've got a business, you didn't actually build that business yourself", which is not what he was saying at all.

That is a textbook example of misrepresentation and quote mining.

Everybody can see this, you're not fooling anyone.

Maybe the Obama campaign can hire you. Then when Obama makes an off-the-cuff speech afterwards you can tell the crowd/media what his actual words meant.

Dude, its like.. Both the more right-winged republicans in here aswell as obama-supporters aswell as independants. Aswell as Europeans (And probably others) Can see that you misrepresented Obama. You arent doing your side any favours, infact. You should just stop posting entirely, its not as if you are contributing anything. And I have small doubt that you are, infact. Trolling us.

Stagnant:

major28:
I disagree completely that this is exploitation.

All right, you have a choice. Suck my dick or starve to death.

Now, I'm definitely not exploiting your terrible situation for my own pleasure, I'm simply offering you a choice! You can take it or leave it!

Do you understand why I dislike objectivism now? What word would you use for people stuck in a situation where the market will work them to the bone and to the death and just barely give them enough to get through the day, and the option of quitting simply doesn't exist because the only thing waiting for them there is homelessness and starvation? I mean, exploitation seems like such a harsh word, doesn't it? Oh wait, it was designed to explain exactly this kind of situation, where those in a worse financial position are left with no real options other than to do what those in a better financial position want for scraps. It's the reason we have those minimum wage laws (which I'm sure you consider soooo coercive). It's the reason we have unions. The fact that the employer-employee relationship is so often so incredibly lopsided is essentially the basis upon which objectivism falls apart at the seams.

There is always the option of trying to better yourself so that you don't HAVE to do these jobs. And again the lopsided employer-employee relationship is that way because there are lots of people willing to do unskilled labor and by supply and demand the unskilled labor ISN'T VALUABLE. Imagine one day the government said okay dirt now costs 20$ a pound. That wouldn't make any sense because dirt is everywhere so you would say "why would anyone pay that much for dirt". Then the government would say "cause we said so and any one who pays less than that for dirt is a criminal". Employers are in the same situation.

Stagnant:

Buddy, cut the crap. We've explained what the quote means multiple times; we've made it very clear that when the president said "you didn't build that", the subject in question was not the small businesses, but rather things like the internet and the roads. Which they didn't. I mean, do you deny that that what he was saying was "you didn't build the roads and internet", or are you sticking to your claim in the OP?

Ok. Meaning of phrase in question. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

In a sentence like this when the word 'that' is used it logically refers to the preceding noun in this case 'business'. But if what you claim is true it referred to "things like the internet and the roads" why didn't Obama use the word 'those' (the plural of that).

If Obama said - If you've got a business, you didn't build those. Somebody else made those happen. - It's still not clear English but a listener will not logically assume that Obama is referring to an object like business but some other objects.

I'll take your word for it that 'that' didn't refer to business. You must have a greater insight in how Obama's mind works than I.

major28:

There is always the option of trying to better yourself so that you don't HAVE to do these jobs.

No, there is not "always the option". Have you ever truly encountered the poor and destitute? Simply "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" isn't always possible, not even in the first world.

Honestly it reminds me of

image

"I was on food stamps and on welfare. Did anybody help me out? No."

Amnestic:

Charles_Martel:

Amnestic:

So your clever strategy is to quote mine and then make a teleprompter joke.

You didn't answer my question though: How much faith do you really have in your own views if the only way you can see to win is to intentionally misquote and misrepresent your opponent?

I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

Then why didn't you include all the context for the 12 second clip you posted?

You know there are easier ways of refuting Charles Martel than actualy trying to get him toadmit that he's wrong. I mean if he's right and taking people words and removeing all context is not a way to missrepresent them then it would be perfectly valid for me to do this:

Charles_Martel:
I apologize

And now that he's apologised for his immoral actions we can all move on happily.

Charles_Martel:

Stagnant:

Buddy, cut the crap. We've explained what the quote means multiple times; we've made it very clear that when the president said "you didn't build that", the subject in question was not the small businesses, but rather things like the internet and the roads. Which they didn't. I mean, do you deny that that what he was saying was "you didn't build the roads and internet", or are you sticking to your claim in the OP?

Ok. Meaning of phrase in question. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

In a sentence like this when the word 'that' is used it logically refers to the preceding noun in this case 'business'. But if what you claim in true it referred to "things like the internet and the roads" why didn't Obama use the word 'those' (the plural of that).

If Obama said - If you've got a business, you didn't build those. Somebody else made those happen. - It's still not clear English but a listener will not logically assume that Obama is referring to an object like business but some other objects.

I'll take your word for it that 'that' didn't refer to business. You must have a greater insight in how Obama's mind works than I do.

Yes, they'll assume that. If they're dishonest assholes who can't role a clip for an additional twelve seconds. Look this stupid bullshit got old when Fox News did it, we don't need more ethically retarded people quote mining the president for no other reason than he has a different political stance than their's. Either edit your original post and acknowledge you have been taking something out of context and can the argument or just admit you are considering applying for a job on Fox News so we know how to properly deal with you.

Axolotl:

Amnestic:

Charles_Martel:

I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

Then why didn't you include all the context for the 12 second clip you posted?

You know there are easier ways of refuting Charles Martel than actualy trying to get him toadmit that he's wrong. I mean if he's right and taking people words and removeing all context is not a way to missrepresent them then it would be perfectly valid for me to do this:

Charles_Martel:
I apologize

And now that he's apologised for his immoral actions we can all move on happily.

Goddamnit, where were you thirty seconds ago before i made an ass of myself in an angry post?

major28:

There is always the option of trying to better yourself so that you don't HAVE to do these jobs. And again the lopsided employer-employee relationship is that way because there are lots of people willing to do unskilled labor and by supply and demand the unskilled labor ISN'T VALUABLE.

One, why do you objectivist people insist on using that expression? It's offensive. It implies you think you're somehow "better" than the next guy just because you happen to be better off.

Two, I'd tell you to ask if the people of Napoli thought a dirty job such as garbage management isn't valuable, but I don't expect you to think of something you take for granted as "valuable", really.

Amnestic:

No, there is not "always the option". Have you ever truly encountered the poor and destitute? Simply "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" isn't always possible, not even in the first world.

Indeed. You first need boots with straps, if you want to even think about that.

Charles_Martel:

In a sentence like this when the word 'that' is used it logically refers to the preceding noun in this case 'business'. But if what you claim is true it referred to "things like the internet and the roads" why didn't Obama use the word 'those' (the plural of that).

If Obama said - If you've got a business, you didn't build those. Somebody else made those happen. - It's still not clear English but a listener will not logically assume that Obama is referring to an object like business but some other objects.

I'll take your word for it that 'that' didn't refer to business. You must have a greater insight in how Obama's mind works than I.

There's a difference between founding a business and building it. It generally takes more than one person to do the latter.

Vegosiux:

major28:

There is always the option of trying to better yourself so that you don't HAVE to do these jobs. And again the lopsided employer-employee relationship is that way because there are lots of people willing to do unskilled labor and by supply and demand the unskilled labor ISN'T VALUABLE.

One, why do you objectivist people insist on using that expression? It's offensive. It implies you think you're somehow "better" than the next guy just because you happen to be better off.

Two, I'd tell you to ask if the people of Napoli thought a dirty job such as garbage management isn't valuable.

It isn't a phrase that compares you to other people it compares you, as you are now to what you could be. I don't see it as offensive to say that you would be better person if you were to learn a new skill, even if you don't make money off it. For instance if I woke up tomorrow and magically knew wood working I would consider that version of me a better person than I am right now.

As for the people of Napoli, this doesn't really prove anything except that they have a garbage problem. The issue isn't that unskilled labor isn't IMPORTANT, it's that it isn't VALUABLE. In fact perhaps if they didn't have to pay a minimum wage for garbage collectors they could higher more people to take care of the problem, I should add I have 0 understanding of any trash issues the people of Napoli are having if the problem results from lack of places to store garbage or something, obviously this wouldn't help.

Amnestic:

No, there is not "always the option". Have you ever truly encountered the poor and destitute? Simply "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" isn't always possible, not even in the first world.

Give me a situation where it would be impossible to learn a new skill, through no fault of the individual. Mental handicaps do not count.

major28:

Give me a situation where it would be impossible to learn a new skill, through no fault of the individual. Mental handicaps do not count.

When you're so exhausted after a 15-hour work-day that you can barely drag yourself into bed.
When you never had a chance to learn to read.
When a local terrorist group has gained a reputation for burning businesses owned by members of your ethnic group and murdering anyone who doesn't 'know their place'.

major28:

There is always the option of trying to better yourself so that you don't HAVE to do these jobs. And again the lopsided employer-employee relationship is that way because there are lots of people willing to do unskilled labor and by supply and demand the unskilled labor ISN'T VALUABLE.

It must be valuable, or corporations wouldn't keep paying people money to do them. The only question, then, is HOW valuable, and I suspect America could go without CEOs a _bit_ longer than it can go without trash collectors or firemen.

"Even in Rapture, someone's gotta scrub the toilets."

major28:

Seanchaidh:

major28:
I agree that police force should charge more than cost. Ideally I would like to see the police force be privatized.

Why do you think that would be better?

I think it would be similar to how it is now, but with competing police forces which I believe would increase efficiency. I also see it's potential for horrible corruption.

Given that the private prison lobby has successfully bought judges to dole out harsher sentences (thus increasing their profits), I can see how a private police force being purchased to arrest more people for bullshit offenses would go just swimmingly.

The idea of a private police force is one of the shittiest ideas in human history.

Charles_Martel:

I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

The fuck you didn't. This is a thoroughly dishonest hack job.

Charles_Martel:

Ok. Meaning of phrase in question. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

That's not the entire fucking phrase, genius.

"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.

Patently obvious he's referring to "this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive." Period, full stop.

Utterly hacky and dishonest, Chazz.

I like how a handful of conservatives here actually try to argue against what Obama said, but another handful seem not too comfortable with that but would rather lie about the content. Why? Don't you have anything valid to say about what he said? Are you incapable of giving a good argument against his point? Or did you watch too much Fox News and can't get the talking point out of your head? Or what? Clearly, others find things wrong with the actual speech to argue against, after all, so why can't you?

Charles_Martel:
Ok. Meaning of phrase in question. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

In a sentence like this when the word 'that' is used it logically refers to the preceding noun in this case 'business'. But if what you claim is true it referred to "things like the internet and the roads" why didn't Obama use the word 'those' (the plural of that).

If Obama said - If you've got a business, you didn't build those. Somebody else made those happen. - It's still not clear English but a listener will not logically assume that Obama is referring to an object like business but some other objects.

Yes. As I said, context. You're still not offering a full quote, or even a correct version of the tiny snippet. Yes, if the only subject that came into question was "business", and there was no gigantic thought break in the middle, you would be right. But you know what? Let's have just one liiiittle bit more of that pararaph:

"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."

Notice: the second-previous sentence makes clear reference to "The American system". The previous sentence mentions roads and bridges. The sentence in question indicates a clear thought break, both in the notated and speech version, as if Obama was trying very hard to separate "you didn't build that" from "you've got a business". In fact, he literally stumbles over his own words and says "that" twice. If that doesn't form a clear separation in your mind, but rather a simple conditional-clause comma, then you suck at English. So it's not "If you've got a business, you didn't build that". It's "If you've got a business - that -- you didn't build that".

Your complaint about singular vs. plural almost makes sense, but you fail to take the "this unbelievable American system" into account, which, again, makes perfect sense in the context of the speech as a whole. "That" even sounds better, more clean, than "those". Hell, it does so even if you leave out the "If you've got a business". In fact, the whole paragraph makes perfect sense if you completely leave out the "If you've got a business" part! It seems like it was thrown in as an afterthought, or maybe a train of thought that just got derailed more than anything. Although I can't say that that's what happened, I can say that while application of "that" to "business" is inconsistent with the rest of the speech AND the candidate as a whole, application of "that" to "American system" is completely consistent with the rest of the speech, and you really have to tie yourself into knots to come to the conclusion that he was saying what you claim he's saying.

I'll take your word for it that 'that' didn't refer to business. You must have a greater insight in how Obama's mind works than I.

Nope, I'm just not torturing the english language to make the president look bad. Seriously dude, this thread was weak, and you should feel bad about it.

Stagnant:
Nope, I'm just not torturing the english language to make the president look bad. Seriously dude, this thread was weak, and you should feel bad about it.

Here, let me help you with that:

image

But yea, the fact that you have to explain quote mining isn't representative of someone's opinion is... sad.

major28:
Imagine one day the government said okay dirt now costs 20$ a pound. That wouldn't make any sense because dirt is everywhere so you would say "why would anyone pay that much for dirt".

You never did any landscape work have you? Some private companies charge that for dirt. most are reasonable and charge far less but still there are some extreme right wing soil suppliers that charge far too much.

*edit, and the only dirt that sells by the pound is in a bag at wally mart. otherwise its by cubic yard or whatever metric equivelant.

Stagnant:
In fact, he literally stumbles over his own words and says "that" twice.

Clear evidence that Obama can only speak with a teleprompter, because no Republican has ever used one or stumbled over their words.

Teleprompter jokes from people who have likely never done a minute of public speaking in their lives are always fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw896Y4vzeg

This ad is entire made of quotes taken out of context. And the reaction the libs gave? Grrr...Romney evil!!1!1

But, one quote from Obama taken only slightly out of context. And now the cries of "CONTEXT" come out. It's very amusing. Can I save this thread for when Obama takes a Romney statement out of context again?

Dhael:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw896Y4vzeg

This ad is entire made of quotes taken out of context. And the reaction the libs gave? Grrr...Romney evil!!1!1

But, one quote from Obama taken only slightly out of context. And now the cries of "CONTEXT" come out. It's very amusing. Can I save this thread for when Obama takes a Romney statement out of context again?

Slightly out of context? He made a liberal message sound communist. Thats not even one step on the political scale, thats like. *Counts on his fingers* Five.

There is also the difference that we are not random youtube users. And OP clearly treated the Escapist as if it was. On Youtube you can pull this sort of crap and get support, you cant here. Make a new account, post the video you linked. Write something negative about Romney (Keep it below 2 lines), I promise you your thread would be torn apart.

Seanchaidh:

He's obviously referring to roads and infrastructure. If Romney wants to base his campaign on a misquote, it might just work. However, it's more likely that voters will think Romney is more of a dishonest shit than they already think he is.

This fiasco did have the notable effect of actually getting me to hate Romney for the first time.

Nikolaz72:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw896Y4vzeg

This ad is entire made of quotes taken out of context. And the reaction the libs gave? Grrr...Romney evil!!1!1

I'll play. Provide the context for those quotes and we can judge for ourselves, can we not?

Rustlin' Jimmies:

Charles_Martel:

I didn't misquote President Obama. I didn't misrepresent him either. His words spoke for themselves.

The fuck you didn't. This is a thoroughly dishonest hack job.

Charles_Martel:

Ok. Meaning of phrase in question. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

That's not the entire fucking phrase, genius.

"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.

Patently obvious he's referring to "this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive." Period, full stop.

Utterly hacky and dishonest, Chazz.

My you certainly have a way with language.

Do you still smoke, work in the field of journalism and live in upstate New York? I won't ask if you still use 'fuck' as a blanket adjective.

But I give you this you don't call me Chuckles anymore.

major28:

There is always the option of trying to better yourself so that you don't HAVE to do these jobs. And again the lopsided employer-employee relationship is that way because there are lots of people willing to do unskilled labor and by supply and demand the unskilled labor ISN'T VALUABLE. Imagine one day the government said okay dirt now costs 20$ a pound. That wouldn't make any sense because dirt is everywhere so you would say "why would anyone pay that much for dirt". Then the government would say "cause we said so and any one who pays less than that for dirt is a criminal". Employers are in the same situation.

With as difference that employees are human beings who need to sustain themselves and relatives. Dirt not. On top of that the value you talk about is purely market based. Do you know how people value companies? Through its cash-flows. Now if you use that to value employees (how much wealth their work creates) you will notice that the market undervalues them. Just like companies can be undervalued too.

Amnestic:

Nikolaz72:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw896Y4vzeg

This ad is entire made of quotes taken out of context. And the reaction the libs gave? Grrr...Romney evil!!1!1

I'll play. Provide the context for those quotes and we can judge for ourselves, can we not?

Wait a sec. I didnt say that O_o.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked