You are looking at that difference very dispassionately. When you label it so clinically, it does sound rather tame. But, that key difference you point out turns the entire tone of the speech on it’s head. It turns it from positive and upbeat (Romney), to scolding and chastising (Obama). It has a profound impact on the content and meaning.
You can always count on Hentor to assume the worst. I’ll get around to doing the mock up as I planned if that will make you happy.
To repeat: What Romney says isn’t “Obama shouldn’t take a scolding tone,” but rather, “Obama is incorrect.” Romney is wrong about that, and he knows it, since he said the same thing 10 years ago.
Meanwhile, since it is true that some people think, incorrectly, that they (or others) get where they are purely on their own efforts, the correction is called for. The scolding is appropriate. I’d scold 'em.
You seem to be working very very hard on being insulted, Debaser.
Interesting how that works, isn’t it?
You go out and try to make an eminently reasonable point, and he ascribes the worst possible motive to your post.
I think we should be glad that this is the first time that’s happened in this thread, otherwise we’d all be banging our heads uselessly against each other.
When you use critical thinking skills to analyze something, you are supposed to be dispassionate. Passion injects bias.
Your passion about this issue (and specifically against Obama) is coloring your perception and making you see negative motivations and dastardly plans that simply are not there.
If you looked at things critically rather than passionately you might see why you are seeing this so differently than everyone else. It isn’t that everyone else is brainwashed into this massive group think cult that’s against you and small businesses for some reason. You don’t seriously think that do you? It sounds a little paranoid schizophrenic if you do, to be honest.
It’s funny to look at it like this, because I can’t imagine Romney, Obama or anyone talking to an audience of Olympic athletes or their supporters this way. It would be rude and insulting. Just like Obama was rude an insulting in speaking to small business owners as he did.
Frylock was hitting close to it when he commented about the key difference that Romney is assuming the Olympians knew they got there with help and the business owners are assumed by Obama to be “go it alone” types. This shades the entire tone to be one that’s insulting and is very revealing about how Obama views business owners. He doesn’t give them the benefit of the doubt. Nearly every line is talking down and I find it odd that anyone would have trouble seeing that.
I’m not insulted. I’m not a small business owner, even. I am just bemused to see the ignorance in this thread by a board that is supposed to be fighting it.
I mean, I get that you all like Obama, but really. The words are plain to see.
Try and respond to things I actually post and not make up crazy stuff, OK?
I think that people in this thread like Obama and are allowing this to impact their view of his words to read them in a much more positive light than a dispassionate viewer would. That’s it. No conspiracy by alien illuminastriousnessors.
Olympians are amateurs. The idea of an amateur “giving back” is a bit silly.
Now imagine in your hypothetical that you’re speaking about multi-millionaire NBA players and the need for them to contribute to local youth athletics programs.
“Obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation.”
Correct. It’s clear that Obama wasn’t referring to all business owners as a whole, only to a few who think they deserve to freeload off the system. For the Michael Phelps analogy to work here, he’d have to think he didn’t need to credit anyone else for helping him along the way (equal to a businessman not paying his fair share of taxes), but since that isn’t the case, it doesn’t wash at all.
Romney’s not only wrong. By blatantly taking Obama out of context and “pretending” that he’s wrong, he’s stooping to unethical levels that I wouldn’t want to see in my leader. It makes you wonder what else he’s willing to do just to get elected.
[QUOTE=Frylock]
To repeat: What Romney says isn’t “Obama shouldn’t take a scolding tone,” but rather, “Obama is incorrect.” Romney is wrong about that, and he knows it, since he said the same thing 10 years ago.
[/quote]
I don’t think that’s true. Here’s some more comments by Romney. (It’s just the first hit on Google news.)
It sounds to me like Romney totally gets it.
So, Obama is"scolding" small businesses, then?
*Scolding is my word. There’s probably a better one. I also don’t think Romney used it.
I think “causal” is the exact wrong word. I think of the network you mention, the infrastructure, not as something that makes things happen, but allows things to happen. That really is the point. If it were truly causal, wouldn’t everyone being doing exceptional and great things? But they’re not. No, the network, the infrastructure, is the backdrop. The baseline. Nothing more. That doesn’t mean that it is not super helpful, even crucial to most endeavors, but it does not cause anything.
But, addressing your larger point, I absolutely agree that investment should continue to be made to it. I think we might tend to disagree in three areas: 1) how much should be invested, 2) the degree to which public work (trash collecting, road maintenance, etc.,) must be done by public employees, and 3) the way the cost burden is spread over the populace. Namely, I advocate a much flatter tax system, a much less progressive one. While the particulars of that are the subject of another debate, that is what lies at the hear of much of the disagreement people have over Obama’s words. As I’ve said more than once, he’s trying to build a narrative that minimizes individual initiative and talent and replace it with praise for what the collective provides…the baseline. The more he can succeed in pairing that grotesque narrative, the more palatable he makes it for the government to raise taxes on people, with the easiest target being, naturally, the wealthy.
It would be perfectly reasonable and fine to appeal to their own road to success, in the hopes that they then voluntarily contribute. But that’s not like taxes at all. You realize that, right?
Do you instantly forget the things that you type right after you type them?:
Are you saying that you did not say these things that I quoted? Overwhelming groupthink, insulting to small business owners, disparaging toward business owners, chastising them. Yup, that about covers it. So which part are you claiming that you didn’t say?
You really should own your own words. When you act aghast that someone calls you on it and insinuate that they are making things up and call them crazy, instead of actually defending your words, it makes you look like you are trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you’ve said.
So again, try looking at the issue dispassionately for once, you may be surprised by what you see when your passion against Obama isn’t clouding your perception so badly. I mean do you really think that Obama hates small businesses for some reason? If so, what would that reason be? I know why republicans would like for everyone to think that he feels this way. That’s easy, its election season. But why would Obama hate small businesses in reality? What’s the motivation? Does this somehow make sense to you, because I just don’t see it. But I’m also not blinded by hate for Obama, so maybe that’s why I can’t see it.
So its silly how Michael Phelps gives back with his foundation, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread?
Imagines
Yep. Still insulting. If someone said that to NBA players I would assume that person didn’t think too highly of them. Just like I don’t think Obama thinks to highly of business owners.
I’d like to just add, I think it would be fine for Obama or some other President to ask people to contribute to the greater good through voluntary donation, like the people in Cheesesteak’s example. I think there’s still a line on the income tax form where one can give extra money to the government. Let him get on TV and appeal to the conscience of the wealthy. Perhaps people like Gates or the late Steve jobs would respond with a billion dollar check to reduce the debt. God knows that all his wealthy friends in Hollywood would jump at the chance to contribute to the greater good, right? Well, after they are done contributing to Obama, of course.
Aside: The Obama Campaign discovered a new political low when the recently asked people to forego things like wedding gifts and have the money go to his campaign instead. Wow. That’s one narcissistic mofo. But, it is his right to ask.
I can’t quarrel with most of the rest of your post. But the above wrong though. I’d say that his rhetoric taps into a tradition that doesn’t minimize individual initiative and talent, but rather, corrects against overemphasis of it. Why do you think he tries to make these things seem of no importance rather than thinking he tries to make these things seem less important than some people think they are?
Yet it would seem perfectly appropriate to me. It would only be “insulting” if said NBA players had an overinflated sense of their own significance.
I didn’t say he trying to say they’re of no importance. I said he’s trying to minimize it.
As far as what the correct emphasis should be, I think we’ll probably simply disagree on that. But tPresident has that Bully Pulpit and he can craft a narrative for the country. The one he is crafting is NOT helpful. It creates less of the real causal link between initiatve and doing something amazing, which will then benefit society.