And even if you were, as a participant who profits from the economy, guess what? You get to pay taxes on that. It’s how it works.
It doesn’t help to totally mischaracterise what people are saying.
I said right there in my post that in all likilihood, nobody else could have done what Jobs did. How much more credit do you want me to give him?
However he is the first to admit that he worked with some fantastically talented people. That he was able to harness that talent, full credit needs to go to him.
It doesn’t change the fact though that that talent was there. That he was able to leverage it.
If you think that Apple is the work of Jobs and Jobs alone you are more than ignorant.
BTW - as a total aside, the “official” autobiography of Jobs is an awesome read, and comes highly recommended.
I don’t see anyone saying that anyone else shouldn’t pay taxes. Do you? If so, who. If not, what’s the point of your post?
So they’ve got a soundbite they can take out of context and whip up outrage among people who weren’t going to vote for Obama in the first place. BFD.
Ahem. Well, that’s a fine piece of work you’ve done there, Mr. Pot. 
But can you tell me what person in this thread, or on this planet, believes the latter of these two statements?
The point is that even if we heap absolute praise on Jobs and never mention anyone else, STILL no one would think that “Apple is the work of Jobs and Jobs alone”. No one. They’d even be of the mind that some people made significant contributions. I mean, anyone running a business of any size has people helping, some even make large contributions. Hopefully, each of them did the job they were paid to do.
And, I ask, where does the need to have praise not be directed to an individual stop? Can we no longer say that Hank Aaron is a Home Run Champ, because well, their are umpires and groundskeepers, not to mention people who made the bat and the ball—and the fence! We we celebrate the heroics if a man who runs into a burning building, do we also praise the people who made the shoes he was wearing at the time? Hell, in this very thread we have people not wanting to give Phelps all the credit for winning 8 Gold Medals because, well, he was driven to practice and someone had to make the pools he swims in.
Talk about ridiculous. Where does it stop? Is there any point that we can celebrate the accomplishments of individuals?
And if he were around to day he’d probably be able to figure out why your link doesn’t work for me. But, me? I’m stuck.
Sure there is:
So can you help me out here. In relation to Obama’s speech, what is it that you’re trying to say? That people don’t need others to succeed, or that they do? And please stop talking about shoes and water. Recognizing a great coach, a fantastic mentor, an inspirational teacher is just a little different than thanking a pair of shoes don’t you think?
It has to do with the narrative that is presented, writ large. Of course, there are other people who have contributed. That’s the default. Everyone knows that. When we say Hank Aaron deserves a medal for hitting home runs, we know damn well that someone turned him on to baseball, coached him along the way, encouraged him, that he had teammates along the way. That perhaps other great players pushed him to be the best he could be. Maybe someone gave him a job baling hay as a kid that helped him get strong. Someone taught him to read and while reading he picked up a crucial typo that allowed him top approve his hitting. Whatever. Yet we give the honor of the accomplishment to HIM. In this very thread people have attempted to say that “Well, Phelps did well, but he didn’t do it on his own”. And all sorts of nonsense was brought up in defense of that.
The ridiculous lengths people are willing to go to take Phelps down half a notch, or Jobs, is indicative of the narrative driven by their ideology as it applies to the government and taxes. Obama and other socialist-minded leftists want to present a reality where the individual is diminished and the collective is the thing celebrated. They know that for people to swallow an even more disproportionate amount of the tax burden being taken up by successful people they must create a fairytale in which the people of accomplishment not only beholden to the government, but beholden to it in an even more lopsided fashion. They want to make it okay to put their hands into a successful person’s pockets because, “well, he owes us more of that money anyway”.
The question is, where do you draw the line. You couldn’t have a better example than Phelps and Jobs, yet people turn themselves into knots deflecting their success to factors other than themselves. It’s a grotesquely contorted view of reality.
And, as I’ve said, it’s not helpful to society. We should be constructing narrative that creates more Steve Jobses, not fewer. Everyone knows that if they start a company that there are roads there to get their employees to work and get their good delivers. Really—EVERYONE! So, it adds nothing and diminishes the narrative that we SHOULD be pushing, namely, that great success is possible. It is up to you. You just have to decide what you want, formulate a plan to get it and carry out that plan. It’s likely going to be hard work, but others have done it. That means you can do it. Just figure out what your suited for and what you’re willing to sacrifice almost everything for. Jobs did it. And thousands and thousands of other businessmen and entrepreneurs have done it. If you don’t have the financial resources, start small and know that you have something more important than money: desire, initiative, and the willingness to work harder than the next guy.
What do you think this discussion is about? Do you really think that the Democrats are just out to deny great men credit for things? :rolleyes: This is a discussion with policy implications.
The first person to bring up Michael Phelps in the thread was you, as an example of…
Well, you never really were able to answer that.
Do you think Michael Phelps is taking himself down a notch when he expresses gratitude for all the people who support him?
This all could have been avoided if Obama had just said “we succeed because of our individual initiative”. Then his intent would have been clear and Fox News would not have been confused.
That doesn’t get him off the hook.
If candidate A said
“I have all respect for women and think they absolutely are equals to men. However, they really should just stay at home and raise kids because their delicate minds aren’t suited to the demands of the workplace.”
Candidate B would absolutely be in his rights to use the second sentence against him, without the first somehow shielding him from responsibility.
Another real world example of this was the ban of certain types of ammo that Kennedy and others attempted to pass in 2005. The NRA fought it, arguing that it potentially banned any guns that could penetrate a bullet proof vest, which would include basically any hunting rifle. The lawmakers pointed to a statement in the law saying it wasn’t meant to be aimed at hunters. So what, said the hunters? It can state its good intent all day long, but if it bans them it bans them.
You can’t get off the hook when you make a dumb statement just because you first posted a disclaimer. In fact, if you find yourself making such an upfront disclaimer, you should probably just stop talking because you are about to step in it. I refuse to use the term gaffe, because like the “cling to religion and guns” comment last time around I think this is insight into what Obama really feels. Its not just a misstatement.
Those are all excellent points. Whenever a situation comes up in which Obama has made a dumb statement, maybe they will apply. Sadly, they are irrelevant to the present situation, since Obama didn’t make a dumb statement.
That little bit of business right there reveals your utter lack of sincerity.
Says you. Most american’s are with Romney on this one. Most people actually like small business owners and don’t want to see them bad-mouthed.
Obama has simply never bad mouthed business owners. Pretending he did, especially based on the misrepresentation discussed in this thread, is simply false.
Eight pages in and you still think you can just hand-wave it away, huh? Good luck with that. There’s no misrepresentation. The meaning doesn’t change when you view the statement in context or on its own. It’s posted back on page one if you need a refresher.