- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,453
- Reaction score
- 3,844
- Location
- Louisville, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I was going with the "you didn't build that". But, you're stepping away from my point.
What? Ahem. Is something more (than currently) owed by the successful person back to the collective by virtue of the successful person's success?
Abso*******lutely. I've read and listened to the entire speech and gained a firm grasp on his main point from the get-go. His main point is "vote for me, I'll take from the successful if you want me to" mixed together with "get ready successful, I may take from you because you're only successful in the first place because of us, who have come to take from you..."
I agree. I immediately sought meaning underneath Obama's mickey-mouse obvious statements that private business owners did not build public bridges (derp!), and figured out a compelling ACTUAL reason he would speak this way to the owners of business.
Nyyyew but its you who are the uniformed one heeeeeere. Neener, neener, neener. We're not talking about roads in subdivisons or condos here. Get a clue.
If you want to re-arrange words, or focus on one part of the speech and ignore the rest, fine, that's up to you. But realize you are doing exactly what you claim the other side is doing. Some, like AdamT would just rearange his words to mean something else entirely...at least you aren't doing that.
The fact is, Obama has never been in business, he doesn't have any idea what it takes to make one succeed. He has been in govt, and so approaches it from that perspective. Do I take his comments to mean that he wants to nationalize all American businesses? No, but I do take them to mean that he feels that govt has, or should have, a bigger role than it does. Both things I do not want my govt to have. I would rather someone have an understanding of management and success before they become CEO of my govt.
Cause I'm looking at the overall message of his speech?
Pot...meet kettle.
I don't. Admit it because it happens to all of us: Obama was swept away by his own rhetoric and went too far. His words were, "If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. “Somebody else made that happen.”...
Excuse me, no. I am simply repeating what the President said, and earlier in this thread, I provided a link to the video and the 0:47 point at which he said them. That's not "cherry-picking"; that's being literal.
Excuse Me...Yes.
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.[1]"
So...Taking a line, out of an entire speech to support your position, while dismissing the context it was placed in....would be called what exactly?
Selective Quotation?
Minimally interpretive word selection?
Creative Sentence Manipulation?
In my opinion...that is the perfect example of Cherry Picking.
Excuse Me...Yes.
"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.[1]"
So...Taking a line, out of an entire speech to support your position, while dismissing the context it was placed in....would be called what exactly?
Selective Quotation?
Minimally interpretive word selection?
Creative Sentence Manipulation?
In my opinion...that is the perfect example of Cherry Picking.
first words....So, then you're acknowledging that he didn't word it in the best way then?
You can obfuscate Obama's thesis all you want, we know he is no Adam Smith or F.A. Hayek. He's a Keynesian with socialist tendencies whose epistemology has never been challenged within his academic bubble. Which is why he makes such highly exploitable flubs in speeches. His "clingers" comment, the "energy prices will necessarily rise" silliness..are all symptoms of his sheltered and frail intellect.
Didn't I ask you to support a claim you made earlier?
Why exclude any types of roads?
You can obfuscate Obama's thesis all you want, we know he is no Adam Smith or F.A. Hayek. He's a Keynesian with socialist tendencies whose epistemology has never been challenged within his academic bubble. Which is why he makes such highly exploitable flubs in speeches. His "clingers" comment, the "energy prices will necessarily rise" silliness..are all symptoms of his sheltered and frail intellect.
If you've done any significant public speaking at all, then you know how easy it is to be carried away when you're in your groove. That's what happened, I think, to the President. He said what he said, and call it a "slip of the tongue" or argue that what he said is being taken out of context as you please, but he did, in fact, say those very words.
You can obfuscate Obama's thesis all you want, we know he is no Adam Smith or F.A. Hayek. He's a Keynesian with socialist tendencies whose epistemology has never been challenged within his academic bubble. Which is why he makes such highly exploitable flubs in speeches. His "clingers" comment, the "energy prices will necessarily rise" silliness..are all symptoms of his sheltered and frail intellect.
Even more amazing would be the self imposed projected ignorance these comments paint. One can assume either pure ignorance, or something far worse.
It truly is astounding that people still cling to such feeble and disproven comments to debase the President. Even more amazing would be the self imposed projected ignorance these comments paint. One can assume either pure ignorance, or something far worse.
I don't know, did you?
Well, he apparently believes there's a non-trivial number of his opponents who argue against having any government at all, paying any taxes at all, and/or are against the basic functions of government, like police, courts, basic infrastructure, etc., in order to have said all this.
That, or he knows there isn't, and he's swatting intentionally at strawmen.
So, given his very premise, it IS ignorance, or it's dishonesty.
It truly is astounding that people still cling to such feeble and disproven comments to debase the President. Even more amazing would be the self imposed projected ignorance these comments paint. One can assume either pure ignorance, or something far worse.
Yes, I did. I'm waiting for an answer.
That is funny -- you erecting an enormous strawman to accuse the president of same. :lol: