Obama: "If you got a business, you didn't build that!"

#77
#77
Vols JD said:
It is being taken as if he said the person with the business did not build the business, he did not say that. He was saying that if you were successful someone helped you get there, completely true statement. A teacher, bank, roads, police, etc. etc. And yes, Roads! No one business built the roads and that is what he said. Out of context would be people saying that Obama said anyone who owns a business did not built that business, that is not what he said and he sums it up in the end by stating his point.
Click to expand...

So what was the intent of his comments? Did anyone claim that successful people did get there completely on their own?
 
#78
#78
Vols JD said:
It is being taken as if he said the person with the business did not build the business, he did not say that. He was saying that if you were successful someone helped you get there, completely true statement. A teacher, bank, roads, police, etc. etc. And yes, Roads! No one business built the roads and that is what he said. Out of context would be people saying that Obama said anyone who owns a business did not built that business, that is not what he said and he sums it up in the end by stating his point.
Click to expand...

You did not build that(business). It was not taken out of context.
 
#80
#80
Vols JD said:
I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Click to expand...
oh yeah, I forgot about that last line of his. Wonder if he's familiar with

Federal obstacles hamper battle on wildfires - Washington Times

The fire didn’t care what kind of federal land it was burning, but for sheriff’s deputies hovering over a blaze in northwestern Nevada last week, it made all the difference: If it was Bureau of Land Management property, they could legally drop the water they were carrying, but if it was Forest Service land, they were out of luck.

Unable to make a clear call, the Washoe County chopper pilot demurred and didn’t drop the 323 gallons of water in the tank.
Click to expand...
 
#81
#81
allvol123 said:
You did not build that(business). It was not taken out of context.
Click to expand...

You did not hear, or see what he said then. That is not what he said, and it is clear from the whole speech and the script above.

If what you say is true, it would against every word he said prior to the speech. It would go against the ideology he has promoted since getting involved in politics.

You did not build that (Roads and Bridges). It was now in context.
 
#82
#82
Vols JD said:
You did not hear, or see what he said then. That is not what he said, and it is clear from the whole speech and the script above.

If what you say is true, it would against every word he said prior to the speech. It would go against the ideology he has promoted since getting involved in politics.

You did not build that (Roads and Bridges). It was now in context.
Click to expand...

Roads and bridges are "those" not "that."
 
#83
#83
utvolpj said:
that's his exact speech. What's your problem with it?
Click to expand...

No it is not his exact speech. It did not include the context, so here it is...


There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. (Roads and bridges) Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
 
#85
#85
Vols JD said:
You did not hear, or see what he said then. That is not what he said, and it is clear from the whole speech and the script above.

If what you say is true, it would against every word he said prior to the speech. It would go against the ideology he has promoted since getting involved in politics.

You did not build that (Roads and Bridges). It was now in context.
Click to expand...

actually you're making a bigger assumption than the ones saying it means a business. You're trying to connect 2 different cases where it just doesn't work. It's one sentence and obviously the words go together. Either that or the Orator in Chief isn't so great off the cuff

which makes more sense:

1) you didn't build that roads and bridges

2) you didn't build that business
 
#86
#86
allvol123 said:
Roads and bridges are "those" not "that."
Click to expand...

In an academic grammatical structure, but when people speak, it is not in a academic grammatical structure. Speeches are not given that way, and here is an example of one.

In an academic grammatical structure you would never end a sentence with a preposition, but in a speak you do it all of the time.

Speech: That is something I never heard of.
Academic grammatical structure: THat is something of which I have never heard.

Say those two and tell me what you would say in a speech???
 
#87
#87
Vols JD said:
In an academic grammatical structure, but when people speak, it is not in a academic grammatical structure. Speeches are not given that way, and here is an example of one.

In an academic grammatical structure you would never end a sentence with a preposition, but in a speak you do it all of the time.

Speech: That is something I never heard of.
Academic grammatical structure: THat is something of which I have never heard.

Say those two and tell me what you would say in a speech???
Click to expand...

He is an attorney by trade. Any attorney worth 2 dollars has extreme control over their vocabulary and use of the English language. Sorry, but your excuse falls flat.

Also, your excuse doesn't even make sense here. It was that and those, those does not ruin the speech.
 
Last edited:
#88
#88
utvolpj said:
actually you're making a bigger assumption than the ones saying it means a business. You're trying to connect 2 different cases where it just doesn't work. It's one sentence and obviously the words go together. Either that or the Orator in Chief isn't so great off the cuff

which makes more sense:

1) you didn't build that roads and bridges

2) you didn't build that business
Click to expand...

That makes no sense in a speech. Have you taken a speech class? That is not how it works. In speech there are inflections, you are lacking that in a script; yet the script still shows how he is referring to roads and not businesses. Referring to businesses would go against his ideology, and everything he has ever written.
 
#89
#89
Vols JD said:
Referring to businesses would go against his ideology, and everything he has ever written.
Click to expand...

sadly it really wouldn't. This is basically a rehash of Elizabeth Warren's statements but he tried to soften the edges.
 
#90
#90
allvol123 said:
He is an attorney by trade. Any attorney worth 2 dollars has extreme control over their vocabulary and use of the English language. Sorry, but your excuse falls flat.
Click to expand...

That is not true! I know many great attorney's who do not have extreme control over their vocabulary. He is an attorney, as an attorney he is playing off of emotion. That is what a speech does.

Your argument makes little sense. An attorney does not care about vocabulary and use of the English language when giving a closing argument or a speech. When he is writing those things do come into effect, but never in a speech. It would never make sense to a jury otherwise or to people that do speak in exactly correct grammatical tenses, actions, or phrases.
 
#91
#91
You got it man. "that" makes the speech and "those"would have ruined it. Awesome. He is what we knew he was, there is nothing surprising here.
 
#92
#92
First of all, he creates a straw man argument by claiming that these greedy filthy rich weasles of business men don't give back. Last time I checked, roads and bridges were paid for with taxes, of which these business pay PLENTY. Secondly, not too many business owners would tell you that their success is 100% independent from the infrastructure established and maintained by the government. So there is another straw man. Without taking one word out of context, and by properly reading his tone during the speech, the spirit of his statement was that these greedy business owners need to do their fair share because they wouldn't be successful without the broad shoulders of the benevolent government to stand on. The fact that he looks at the issue this way is troublesome to me.
 
#93
#93
utvolpj said:
sadly it really wouldn't. This is basically a rehash of Elizabeth Warren's statements but he tried to soften the edges.
Click to expand...

No, Elizabeth Warren's statements never included saying that business people did not build their business. He and Elizabeth Warren did say the same kinds of things. Roads and Bridges were built by the government. The same thing Henry Ford accredited his greater success towards. Every educated man or women knows that without help, no one can make it. Hell, I graduated Summa Cum Laude, highest honor, 4.0. I worked hard, got scholarships, and made my own grades. I still got help from teachers when I needed it and without pell grants or loans, I would not have even gotten a shot. I needed the road I drove on an hour to get to school and an hour back to get home. I would not have had the chance to go to Law School without help. This argument that people just do everything on their own is nonsense and delusional. I am not a fan of republican or democrats. They both are horrible ideologues trying to bring the immunization of the eschaton through ideology. They both suck, but this is just incorrect and an uneducated stance to try to win political advantage points.
 
Last edited:
#94
#94
SamRebel35 said:
First of all, he creates a straw man argument by claiming that these greedy filthy rich weasles of business men don't give back. Last time I checked, roads and bridges were paid for with taxes, of which these business pay PLENTY. Secondly, not too many business owners would tell you that their success is 100% independent from the infrastructure established and maintained by the government. So there is another straw man. Without taking one word out of context, and by properly reading his tone during the speech, the spirit of his statement was that these greedy business owners need to do their fair share because they wouldn't be successful without the broad shoulders of the benevolent government to stand on. The fact that he looks at the issue this way is troublesome to me.
Click to expand...

That is not a straw man argument presented or "created" as you write. Your proposition is an ad reductio absurdum logical fallacy. Last time you checked... maybe you never checked. Roads and bridges where not paid for in full by the tax payers. We went into debt for much of the roads you see today. They are being paid off by tax dollars and by other ways the FED makes money. Anyone who knows and understands economics (I mean actually took upper level economic class) understands this is a nonsensical argument you are bringing up.
 
Last edited:
#95
#95
allvol123 said:
You got it man. "that" makes the speech and "those"would have ruined it. Awesome. He is what we knew he was, there is nothing surprising here.
Click to expand...

See, I never said that would ruin it but I do claim that speeches have more room for interchangement between words like those and that; so an argument against should not predicate that distinctions need to be etched in stone.
 
#96
#96
All you guys are cool. I'll keep checking on this to see what you write. Thanks for the discussion.
 
#97
#97
Vols JD said:
See, I never said that would ruin it but I do claim that speeches have more room for interchangement between words like those and that; so an argument against should not predicate that distinctions need to be etched in stone.
Click to expand...

Words have meanings. Simple concept.
 
#99
#99
Vols JD said:
That is not a straw man argument presented or "created" as you write. Your proposition is an ad reductio absurdum logical fallacy. Last time you checked... maybe you never checked. Roads and bridges where not paid for in full by the tax payers. We went into debt for much of the roads you see today. They are being paid off by tax dollars and by other ways the FED makes money. Anyone who knows and understands economics (I mean actually took upper level economic class) understands this is a nonsensical argument you are bringing up.
Click to expand...

So how exactly was my statement incorrect? And if tax dollars didn't go towards the construction of roads, then why would businesses be any less entitled to use them than anyone else?

The heart of my statement is that Obama was trying his best to drum up resentment towards business owners because they don't do their fair share, and they don't appreciate everybody that helped them. The government should be able to take whatever they deem necessary from that business because that business wouldn't exist without government.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top