mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
She didn't build that business
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
She didn't build that business
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Never leave your purse or wallet in sight, even if the car is locked.
What's wrong with this picture??
Never leave your purse or wallet in sight, even if the car is locked.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Oh, you mean where Obama said: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
FF and Co here seems to be flailing around with little substance behind what they say. Supposedly you also don't like the GOP, but I would love to hear equal time from you guys esp when the GOP is the party of big govt. Likewise, its no big surprise that unemployment has not decreased...when the Dems hacheted govt jobs.
And if anything the predicament with the debt resulting from a hammer to govt revenues was set up by the GOP. And if you want an updated graph...go find one. The message is clear...damage was done prior to Obama. Give credit where credit is due:
Oh, you mean where Obama said: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
FF and Co here seems to be flailing around with little substance behind what they say. Supposedly you also don't like the GOP, but I would love to hear equal time from you guys esp when the GOP is the party of big govt. Likewise, its no big surprise that unemployment has not decreased...when the Dems hacheted govt jobs.
And if anything the predicament with the debt resulting from a hammer to govt revenues was set up by the GOP. And if you want an updated graph...go find one. The message is clear...damage was done prior to Obama. Give credit where credit is due:
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Why? you already are doing such a good job in that regard, I couldn't possibly improve on it!
Seriously, we've been discussing the record of "accomplishment" no? if Harry Reid didn't keep everything bottled up so that no Democratic Senator could ever possibly be embarrassed by a vote on anything, because no voting occurs in the Senate at all! then we might be able to mock the Republican House, instead, thanks to Reid's theatrics, the House can pass ridiculous symbolic votes knowing full well their bills will not even be debated in the Senate, much less voted down.
you've not heard me saying anything favorable about the GOP in the past several years here because there is little to say. you cannot (if you are honest) say I've defended them. your biggest complaint is that I don't rag on them??
you're even wrong on that score, I can point out multiple posts in which I've said "both parties support crony capitalism" or "both parties are infested with career politicians" or "both parties blah blah blah" As a reminder, "both" does include the GOP, so indeed you actualy are overlooking the multiple times I have criticized them.
and who received my most favorable reviews in the "politicians we admire" thread? Reagan, Clinton, and Joe Lieberman.
yeah, you defend the indefensible just because "your guy" said it. for my part I've had enough cognitive dissonance in my life already, i don't like it and don't want any more of it. life is so much healthier when you admit a mistake and take steps to correct it, saying "it's not my fault" makes a person impotent and powerless.
what makes you identify with BHO so strongly anyway, that you take a criticism of him so personally?? you act as if it were directed at you, instead of at him! you and he are separate and distinctly different from each other, you do know that, right?
Why? you already are doing such a good job in that regard, I couldn't possibly improve on it!
Seriously, we've been discussing the record of "accomplishment" no? if Harry Reid didn't keep everything bottled up so that no Democratic Senator could ever possibly be embarrassed by a vote on anything, because no voting occurs in the Senate at all! then we might be able to mock the Republican House, instead, thanks to Reid's theatrics, the House can pass ridiculous symbolic votes knowing full well their bills will not even be debated in the Senate, much less voted down.
you've not heard me saying anything favorable about the GOP in the past several years here because there is little to say. you cannot (if you are honest) say I've defended them. your biggest complaint is that I don't rag on them??
you're even wrong on that score, I can point out multiple posts in which I've said "both parties support crony capitalism" or "both parties are infested with career politicians" or "both parties blah blah blah" As a reminder, "both" does include the GOP, so indeed you actualy are overlooking the multiple times I have criticized them.
and who received my most favorable reviews in the "politicians we admire" thread? Reagan, Clinton, and Joe Lieberman.
yeah, you defend the indefensible just because "your guy" said it. for my part I've had enough cognitive dissonance in my life already, i don't like it and don't want any more of it. life is so much healthier when you admit a mistake and take steps to correct it, saying "it's not my fault" makes a person impotent and powerless.
what makes you identify with BHO so strongly anyway, that you take a criticism of him so personally?? you act as if it were directed at you, instead of at him! you and he are separate and distinctly different from each other, you do know that, right?
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/historical_data.html - select any year from 1992-2010 to get total state government employment data for the US as well as total federal employment.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Jonah Goldberg at NRO has a pretty good take on "build that"-gate . . . at least for the first few paragraphs.
That last line is pretty naive, though. I don't ridicule Goldberg for claiming Obama is other than a pragmatist. I ridicule him for taking Obama's 2012 campaign speech as conclusive evidence of who Obama is, especially when he also has access to 2008 campaign speeches as well as nearly 4 years of action in office.
The fact that Obama and Romney have thrown red meat to their respective bases does not make them uncompromising idealogues. Goldberg would die of laughter if anyone "analyzed" Romney in the same way that he's "analyzing" Obama. This, like tax return-gate, is purely oppo-driven scandal.
Jonah Goldberg at NRO has a pretty good take on "build that"-gate . . . at least for the first few paragraphs.
That last line is pretty naive, though. I don't ridicule Goldberg for claiming Obama is other than a pragmatist. I ridicule him for taking Obama's 2012 campaign speech as conclusive evidence of who Obama is, especially when he also has access to 2008 campaign speeches as well as nearly 4 years of action in office.
The fact that Obama and Romney have thrown red meat to their respective bases does not make them uncompromising idealogues. Goldberg would die of laughter if anyone "analyzed" Romney in the same way that he's "analyzing" Obama. This, like tax return-gate, is purely oppo-driven scandal.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
That statement by Goldberg makes no sense at all. It's predicated on assuming the very thing that's not true. Would that Obama was more liberal and more committed to causes of social justice. But he isn't -- his governance shows who he is, a centrist with good instincts for how to mobilize the left to vote for him without giving them back much tangible.
That statement by Goldberg makes no sense at all. It's predicated on assuming the very thing that's not true. Would that Obama was more liberal and more committed to causes of social justice. But he isn't -- his governance shows who he is, a centrist with good instincts for how to mobilize the left to vote for him without giving them back much tangible.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
But..but...TEH SOCIALISM!!!11! He's a Muslin dictator from Kenya!
I bet he's one of "you people" to whom Ann Romney was referring.
But..but...TEH SOCIALISM!!!11! He's a Muslin dictator from Kenya!
I bet he's one of "you people" to whom Ann Romney was referring.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Hey, I was just giving him credit for having the right opinion (read: mine ) on Obama's statement being too banal for the surrounding controversy. He does go off the rails, though. He should have stopped while he was ahead.
Hey, I was just giving him credit for having the right opinion (read: mine
) on Obama's statement being too banal for the surrounding controversy. He does go off the rails, though. He should have stopped while he was ahead.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Paragraph 1: Apparently non-controversial statement...
Paragraph 2: ... turned into Concern Trolling to feed into...
Paragraph 3: ... paranoid misinterpretation, eventually wrapping up with...
Paragraph 4: ... non-sequitorial cry for defense of Israel at any price and recommendation that all Muslims should be imprisoned.
Apparently he excluded Paragraph 4 this time. Word count, I guess.
This is the typical Jonah Goldberg piece:Hey, I was just giving him credit for having the right opinion (read: mine
Paragraph 1: Apparently non-controversial statement...
Paragraph 2: ... turned into Concern Trolling to feed into...
Paragraph 3: ... paranoid misinterpretation, eventually wrapping up with...
Paragraph 4: ... non-sequitorial cry for defense of Israel at any price and recommendation that all Muslims should be imprisoned.
Apparently he excluded Paragraph 4 this time. Word count, I guess.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Conservatives are giving Dems an easy out whenever they try to make "that" = the business. It's pretty clear that's not what Obama meant, so then it just becomes an argument over grammar.
It would be a much more interesting debate if we stipulate that "that" = government-built infrastructure. That's really what Obama wants to hang his hat on? Seriously? Our infrastructure is notoriously bad and poorly maintained. That's government's big accomplishment for all the taxes we have paid and for the trillions of debt that has been racked up? The internet was basically an interesting science project when it was in government hands. It wasn't until the private sector (including private non-profit organizations) got ahold of it in the 1990s that it became the awesome productivity tool that it is today. Is it plausible to suggest that we would not have something like the internet today if DARPA had decided not to look into DARPA-net? Not to me, it isn't. Besides which, private industry may not have "built that (infrastructure)" but they sure as heck funded it. It's like telling the guy who scored the overtime unassisted game winning goal, "you get no credit, because the team won the game."
If you take "that" to mean "private business," then you're talking about a little gaffe at best. If you take "that" to mean government-built infrastructure, then the comment is even more demeaning to private citizens and business, and actually shows the President to be further out of touch with reality.
Conservatives are giving Dems an easy out whenever they try to make "that" = the business. It's pretty clear that's not what Obama meant, so then it just becomes an argument over grammar.
It would be a much more interesting debate if we stipulate that "that" = government-built infrastructure. That's really what Obama wants to hang his hat on? Seriously? Our infrastructure is notoriously bad and poorly maintained. That's government's big accomplishment for all the taxes we have paid and for the trillions of debt that has been racked up? The internet was basically an interesting science project when it was in government hands. It wasn't until the private sector (including private non-profit organizations) got ahold of it in the 1990s that it became the awesome productivity tool that it is today. Is it plausible to suggest that we would not have something like the internet today if DARPA had decided not to look into DARPA-net? Not to me, it isn't. Besides which, private industry may not have "built that (infrastructure)" but they sure as heck funded it. It's like telling the guy who scored the overtime unassisted game winning goal, "you get no credit, because the team won the game."
If you take "that" to mean "private business," then you're talking about a little gaffe at best. If you take "that" to mean government-built infrastructure, then the comment is even more demeaning to private citizens and business, and actually shows the President to be further out of touch with reality.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
In any reasonably free society, the family's influence probably trumps the government's when it comes to a person's likelihood of being successful. Paved roads are all well and good, but personally, I'd rather have the family wealth and connections putting me in the best schools from day one and giving me access to vast networks of other really successful families. It's no accident that the guys likely to be president these days all seem to go to Harvard or Yale. That sort of thing trumps "good teacher in 2nd grade" any day of the week.
Of course, neither of these factors is a substitute for what I believe to be the most important one: motivation. Without desire, you're just a useless blob of carbon-based molecules taking up space.
In any reasonably free society, the family's influence probably trumps the government's when it comes to a person's likelihood of being successful. Paved roads are all well and good, but personally, I'd rather have the family wealth and connections putting me in the best schools from day one and giving me access to vast networks of other really successful families. It's no accident that the guys likely to be president these days all seem to go to Harvard or Yale. That sort of thing trumps "good teacher in 2nd grade" any day of the week.
Of course, neither of these factors is a substitute for what I believe to be the most important one: motivation. Without desire, you're just a useless blob of carbon-based molecules taking up space.
The only reason its interesting at all is that bloggers with an axe to bring omit the paragraph following "that," in which Obama clarifies that he sees individual initiative as a necessary condition, but possibly not sufficient. People get help along the way. That help can take the form of infrastructure, it could be a teacher, it could be anything. Obama could have included benefitting from markets, even, which are distinguished from anarchy by rules. The benefit could be legal (incorporation, limited liability, bankruptcy protection).
Its so true its barely worth mentioning. Unless you're speaking as a candidate to an audience full of public sector employees during a campaign stop.
If someone is already for Romney, then by all means - have at it. Truth is the first casualty not of war, but of politics. Campaign for your guy. Just have the good grace to admit it when someone calls you on it. Like the equally vapid tax return stuff.
$.02
Its so true its barely worth mentioning. Unless you're speaking as a candidate to an audience full of public sector employees during a campaign stop.
If someone is already for Romney, then by all means - have at it. Truth is the first casualty not of war, but of politics. Campaign for your guy. Just have the good grace to admit it when someone calls you on it. Like the equally vapid tax return stuff.
$.02
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
Just to be clear..... When BO said "you didn't build that business" we are to take that to mean "you didn't build that road"?
Just to be clear..... When BO said "you didn't build that business" we are to take that to mean "you didn't build that road"?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
To me that (obviously) means you didn't do it all on your own. That's the point of the rest of the passage. That used to be called the spirit of community. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Until the voices in Glenn Beck's head started to call that EVIL KUMMINIZM.
Just to be clear..... the quote is:
To me that (obviously) means you didn't do it all on your own. That's the point of the rest of the passage. That used to be called the spirit of community. "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Until the voices in Glenn Beck's head started to call that EVIL KUMMINIZM.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
So one of my coworkers is running for City Council in Brooklyn Park, MN. I decided to do some Google searches, and came across and interesting fact sort of related to this. The Mayor of that city is officially listed as a part-time job. The mayor receives an annual paycheck of $171,000. The city has only about 55,000 people in it.
So one of my coworkers is running for City Council in Brooklyn Park, MN. I decided to do some Google searches, and came across and interesting fact sort of related to this. The Mayor of that city is officially listed as a part-time job. The mayor receives an annual paycheck of $171,000. The city has only about 55,000 people in it.
Re: Elections 2012 -- Kull Wahad!!!
when I first read the quote, I pretty much agreed with your interpretation, and I wondered what the controversy was about. Then I listened to a recording of what he actually said, and if you follow the cadence of his voice and the stress patterns, the message is less clear. Also, the undertone of "you didn't build that" to some people implies a consequent, unspoken "therefore" which makes them quite uncomfortable!
Yes, I very much concur. I'll take it a step further: most of the time, it actually was private business that built it, too! Outside the Army Corps of Engineers, the US Government is not noted for its in-house construction prowess, and on top of that, the prospect of putting government contracts out to bid by private contractors is too tempting a political plum for Congressional representatives to resist! (see, the "bridge to nowhere", or Murtha Airport, or countless other pork-barrel projects too numerous to mention, all built by private contractors who no doubt paid plenty in campaign contributions for the privilege!) They also can reward their private sector union supporters by passing "prevailing wage" bills about how to staff these jobs, too! what a great deal for the politicians, the unions, and the contractors, crony capitalism at its finest!
and an aside to 5/6 of the $6 million dollar man, I note that both parties (i.e., the GOP does it) engage in it way too much, okay?
when I first read the quote, I pretty much agreed with your interpretation, and I wondered what the controversy was about. Then I listened to a recording of what he actually said, and if you follow the cadence of his voice and the stress patterns, the message is less clear. Also, the undertone of "you didn't build that" to some people implies a consequent, unspoken "therefore" which makes them quite uncomfortable!
Yes, I very much concur. I'll take it a step further: most of the time, it actually was private business that built it, too! Outside the Army Corps of Engineers, the US Government is not noted for its in-house construction prowess, and on top of that, the prospect of putting government contracts out to bid by private contractors is too tempting a political plum for Congressional representatives to resist! (see, the "bridge to nowhere", or Murtha Airport, or countless other pork-barrel projects too numerous to mention, all built by private contractors who no doubt paid plenty in campaign contributions for the privilege!) They also can reward their private sector union supporters by passing "prevailing wage" bills about how to staff these jobs, too! what a great deal for the politicians, the unions, and the contractors, crony capitalism at its finest!
and an aside to 5/6 of the $6 million dollar man, I note that both parties (i.e., the GOP does it) engage in it way too much, okay?
Last edited:
- Status