Wow!
Your last sentence (and whole nonsensical rationale) is utterly laughable!
Even you cannot believe anyone is going to take this tripe seriously, surely!
(HaHaHa! You should consider comedy!)
(It occurs to me maybe the far right actually DO believe this shite. How sad is that?)
Fotheringay-Phipps wrote: "The ironic thing about that misquote is that the misquote is not that far in meaning from the real quote.
IOW, it’s technically true that Obama did not mean that you didn’t build your business; he meant that you didn’t build the public infrastructure which supports your business. But in context, he was making the exact same point. That since your business relies on that public infrastructure, which you didn’t build, you therefore owe part of your business to the public which did build the infrastructure that supports the business. Which is not really different in meaning than saying you didn’t build the business."
So you’re saying that he actually meant what you guys say he said even while you’re acknowledging that he didn’t actually say it? I’m not sure if that’s Orwellian or merely Pythonesque.
No, it shows quite clearly that libertarians are not, as a group, pro-choice. There isn’t much of a litmus test for libertarian other than ‘self-professed’, and if there is one then ‘being endorsed by the Libertarian Party as a presidential candidate’ would have to pass it for it to be at all sensible. The various theories of libertarianism are generally inconsistent and use unusual definitions of words, reconciling abortion with one of them is not hard at all. Remember, it’s common for libertarians to use the 1800s as an example of a time when the US was much more free than now, even though the US had slavery, lack of voting rights even for non-slaves, robber barons getting rich through government intervention, and outright wars of conquest against Native nations and Mexico.
Yes it is. Obama clearly meant “You didn’t do it all by yourself; we all played a part in your success.”
You’re attributing the quote to me, but is was FP.
Sorry, it was hard to tell from your formatting.
F-P, that was for you.
(a) You could not have contributed this comment without the existence of a stable society in which you have not been murdered, an electricity supply, and the invention of the computer and the internet.
(b) You did not contribute this comment.
Do you see the difference? Since (a) is correct and (b) is incorrect, we can determine you are responsible for the content of your comment, even if your ability to participate was dependent on other necessary elements. And that’s not looking good for you. Perhaps if you paid 30% of this comment to the government in taxes, you’d only be 70% an idiot?
This is the point already made by Elvis. It’s a specious point.
Even those who distorted Obama’s quote and those who heard the distorted quote obviously didn’t present/understand it as meaning a business owner had nothing at all to do with building his business. The “you alone” was understood.
So in this case both meant the same thing. The quote was presented as containing the meaning it was intended to have, and the distortion just involved putting it in a sharper and more provocative form.
Bullshit. The quote presented out of context is quite obviously intended to mislead by implying the spurious meaning (b), when Obama meant something similar to (a). The distinction is not just that one is “sharper”.
Well that kind of settles it, I guess.
Under the “use of the term ‘bullshit’ settles the matter” rule, you win this round. Should have thought to use it myself, but that’s how it goes, sometimes. 
1.5
Why did you cut out the clear explanation from his post, leaving only “bullshit”? No argument against that part? You seem to have a tenuous relationship with context.
So what percentage of people that call themselves Libertarians would you say follow all the tenets of that document?
He didn’t explain anything, he just contradicted me. That’s fine, but no further argument is necessary.
So, in order to support your contention that there was no misrepresentation in quoting Obama out of context, you quoted me out of context as just saying “bullshit” with no ellipsis, in order to imply that I did not also make any substantive argument as to why what you’re saying is bullshit?
ETA: ninjaed by TroutMan
Was that what you think they meant by using it as a slogan at their 2012 convention? :dubious:
I didn’t follow the 2012 convention, but I assume so.
Hillary Clinton once wrote a book called “It Takes a Village”, which was also mocked extensively, for expressing the same sentiment as Obama. No one thought she meant “parents have no involvement in raising their children”.
Who the fuck knows?
Not everyone falls in complete line with their preferred political party.
Seriously?
It would be ridiculous to assume so. Give it a bit of thought and try again.
No, it was mocked for, as the mockers misrepresented it, advocating socialism. There was an undertone of misogyny there too, as is usually the case with Hillary-mockery.
Lol, F-P began his days contribution to this thread by calling a non-insignificant percentage of the people on this board liars and, to use his phrase, “self-deluded”. I get that trolls gotta troll, but there’s no need to respond to a person whose default position is that the person speaking to him is likely a self-deluded liar.
Just sayin’.