From Post 228:
And them someone commented with something along the lines of, “Yeah, but someone had to build the pool.” For which the world does not have enough roll-eyes.
I’ve got one of those fancy computers that lets me go back and re-read what people have written, so it’s not particularly useful to just quote yourself. I’m asking why you brought up Phelps in the first place. What point were you trying to make?
:rolleyes: right back at ya.
Then why isn’t the GOP beating up on the retirees, free trade and Gitmo? They seem to be intensely focused on about 9% of the federal budget as a way to close a 30% gap.
+1
ETA: BTW this thread title is incredibly misleading to the point of fraudulent.
It’s a direct quote of a complete sentence.
BTW, I saw some columnist make a good point: If the preceding sentence, “somebody invested in roads and bridges,” was meant to be referred to in the sentence in question, why didn’t the president say “those” (plural) in reference to “roads and bridges,” instead of “that” (singular)?
As I say, at the very least I think there’s a bit of deliberate ambiguity built in there.
Deliberate ambiguity built in…for what purpose?
Wink and a nod to the base, of course, while leaving room for a plausible claim (as you guys do) that "oh, no, no, the president didn’t mean that . . .
Kind of like when Republicans run on “law and order” and “family values.” Consult your playbook.
So, let’s explore this idea. You appear to be asserting that the Democratic “base” (or at least Obama’s base, if these are different) is ideologically attached to the idea that no citizens of a state are capable of achieving any success without the direct assistance of government. And that the dog whistles used in Democratic (or Obamanian) circles are references to infrastructure, group effort and the American system of government. (Possibly because our real goal is for all of our family, friends, neighbors, military men & women, firefighters, police & etc. to be mindless pablum fed drones running on government programming?)
Wouldn’t it be less of an intellectual excursion to just parse the meaning of the POTUS’ quote in the context of what he was saying? I know Republicans don’t expect politicians to say what they mean or to mean what they say, but why not try listening that way once in a while purely as an analytical technique?
When Obama says “you didn’t build that”, why wouldn’t he have been referring to the “unbelievable American system that we have” on which he’d based his theme, and from which he’d just listed several real consequences specially beneficial to American businesses?
Which columnist made that “good point”.
Obama obviously meant the entire business, not the infrastructure that supports it. If Obama thought that those who start businesses succeed in part because of their individual initiative, he would have said so.
Read the speech. He did say that. I even quote it in post two or three of this thread. Can’t delink from phone though sorry.
I think Ludovic’s post might have been a bit… ferrous in intent. Br’er Ludovic? Irony any?
If it were any moreso I’d have to change my name to Alanis.
I think it was Charles Krauthammer, though I can’t find it online at the moment.
That guy doesn’t make good points. He’s as rabid right wing as they come in the newspaper commentary section. I live in Chicago and have seen his crap for years. I would pretty much just assume the opposite of whatever point he’s trying to massacre in the future. You’ll be better off that way.
I’ve always been told that covert attempts to destroy America will be exposed through minor discrepancies in syntax. Good catch!
You’ve got to be kidding. Here, I’ll give you a hint: the reason I brought him up, and skiing, revolves around the word “like”. If you can’t figure it out from there, you may want to go ask an English teacher. Or one of his or her students. It’s really that basic. I
In the meantime, you’ve earned another :rolleyes:
The sad thing is this is what were talking about instead of how to stop the government and corporate bureaucrats from stealing everything we love and squandering our opportunities.
So you think teachers and bridges are “like” gravity and water, and that Michael Phelps becoming wet was somehow illustrative of this similarity.
My mistake. I thought there was some subtlety I was missing. Instead, you’re just wrong.
Uh, no. Especially since you’ve offered no rationale. The bottom line is that people who start businesses and succeed deserve the credit for doing so. They’ve played on the same play field as everyone else, yet they suited up and did what was necessary. Milions of people drive on the same roads they do and didn’t take advantage of the infrastructure and do all the other things to open the doors and make their businesses succeed. The Steve Jobses, Michael Phelpses, and Martha Stewarts of the world deserve the credit. Not the computer chip, swimming pool manufacturers or arts and crafts stores.
Most important, we should be presenting the narrative to the world that yes, it was the individual who made his success happen. THAT is how you encourage other individuals to do the same.
While I don’t disagree with that, I think the point is that the over-glorification of the Entrepreneur is seeming to lead to this idea that public spending is always bad and wasteful, rather than recognizing that large scale commerce would not be possible without public investments in infrastructure.