OT: FACT CHECK: Convention speakers stray from reality

Page 4 of 9  

Children, children ...<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Words can be so divisive.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; The way I interpret the whole exchange about "building" is that someone<BR>&gt; claimed that (some) businessmen who built their businesses had done so<BR>&gt; without any help whatsoever.<BR><BR>Who exactly is supposed to have claimed that?&nbsp; Did someone<BR>jump up and claim it in the audience?&nbsp; Romney?&nbsp;&nbsp; I didn't hear<BR>anyone claim it.&nbsp; It's a strawman.&nbsp; But I do think that someone<BR>who started say an AC business and built it over<BR>20 years so that now he has 10 employees, does deserve the<BR>overwhelming credit for doing it himself.&nbsp;&nbsp; And the roads that<BR>those trucks go down, the business DID help build through the<BR>income taxes, fees, real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc<BR>it pays.<BR><BR><BR><BR>&gt;Which was an overblown claim of course, and<BR>&gt; literally impossible.<BR><BR>So, who made this specific claim that Obama felt the<BR>compelling need for a president to respond = to?<BR><BR><BR><BR>&gt; The retort was that people surely would have been<BR>&gt; there mentoring those businessmen, educating them from childhood,<BR>&gt; financing their ideas, etc. etc. And yes, they couldn't have gotten<BR>&gt; "there" without a public works infrastructure (unless they did everything<BR>&gt; by walking on Indian trails, and bartering in person). Childish claims<BR>&gt; all, from both sides. But then we are in election season, and everything<BR>&gt; gets weighed on ridiculous scales or blown up out of all proportion.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Now I am afraid that the "good" intentions of Romnay and Ryan to rein in<BR>&gt; expenditures are falling by the wayside as the rank and file Republican<BR>&gt; lawmakers realize that MedicAid, MediCare, Social Security, flood relief<BR>&gt; etc, are all things that the electorate likes.<BR><BR>Those on MediCaid are unlikely to vote for Republicans, so<BR>that isn't a concern.&nbsp;&nbsp; If the budget can grow by 40% in just<BR>4 years, logic would suggest that it's also possible to reign in<BR>that growth.&nbsp; It's going to happen with or without Romney.<BR>The only difference is that with Romney it may happen<BR>without a finacial calamity like Greece ocurring.&nbsp; Leaving it<BR>to Obama and the Democrats, that is exactly where we are<BR>headed.&nbsp; $16 tril and growing by $1.2tril more each year.<BR><BR><FONT color=#ff0000>Perhaps you right but you are forgetting that Bush/Republicans </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 face=Verdana>borrowed 4 trillion from china for which your kids will/are paying for</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 face=Verdana>and will be for years to come!!</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR><FONT face=Verdana>&gt; So how are they going to<BR>&gt; finance the military, keep "entitlements" solvent and without cutbacks,<BR>&gt; increase employment, and all those other empty promises? Oh, I get it,<BR>&gt; unfunded mandates, let the states and locals do it ... Yeah ...<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; --<BR><BR>A lot of it can and will be done on inauguration day.&nbsp;&nbsp; The key to<BR>bringing the deficit down is to reduce spending AND to get the<BR>economy growing again.&nbsp; To address the latter part,<BR>Romneyy can:<BR><BR>A - Make it clear that he is pro-business and the anti-business agenda<BR>is over<BR>That any regulation that stands in the way of business, including the<BR>EPA, is now<BR>taking a back seat to the current #1 problem, jobs.<BR><BR>B - Approve immediate construction of the Keystone pipeline.&nbsp; That<BR>provides jobs and brings more energy from a US ally into the country<BR><BR>C - Immediately open as much US land to oil/gas exploration as<BR>he can.&nbsp; And send legislation to Congress to open up all that he<BR>can't, including ANWR.&nbsp; That will have an immediate psychological<BR>effect on the price of oil.&nbsp;&nbsp; And within a few years, we will have the<BR>benefit of more oil.&nbsp; Had Obama done that in Jan 2009, we'd have<BR>that oil and those jobs today.&nbsp;&nbsp; But they didn't with one reason<BR>being, well it would take years for the oil to get out of the ground.<BR>Bet Obama wishes he had done it now.<BR><BR>D - Get Obamacare repealed, lifting the uncertainty and burden<BR>for business.<BR><BR>E - Find all the nimrods in the Labor Dept that were responsible<BR>for trying to screw Boeing by blocking it's new plant in SC.&nbsp; Fire<BR>every last one of them<BR><BR>F- Just having a president who doesn't go around making dumb,<BR>anti-business speeches, like the one under discussion, that alone<BR>will be a big positive in giving people encouragement and changing<BR>the mood.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a good one. lol
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:09:41 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Wacko talk. Nothing there dismisses hard work. It's normal non-asskisser talk, which is beyond your ken.

More wacko talk, and just as I thought. You simply want everybody to go around kissing the asses you kiss. Won't happen, wacko.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
actually there was federal funds involved in Metro pkwy and the extension
ed in ft. Myers
wrote in message

The context was that the government built the road in front of the building so that must be the secret of these people's success. Unfortunatel,y I drive down perfectly good roads every day past unsuccessful businesses. The people who succeed work hard and they do build that business.
In Ft Myers we have a privately built road with lots of thriving businesses along it (Metro Parkway). The government certainly did not build that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

'Fraid not, unless they also have a bridge and school in front of the building...

Straw man.

So you contend FL 739 did not exist through Ft. Myers until private enterprise built it...?! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Road_739 -----
- gpsman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:19:45 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

What's worse is that Gov. Romney himself quoted it and then he said, "But they tell us that we're using it out of context. When you look at in context, it's worse". Of course he didn't quote it in context and it's not worse. It's far milder and barely worth complaining about, even from the Rep. pov. Usually candidates have someone else to do their dirty work, including spreading falsehoods, but here is Romney doing it himself.
It wasn't a very strong point for Pres. Obama to make, but that doesn't take any of the blame away from Reps for distorting it. Making a weak point is not a sin. Lying, directly or cleverly, is. Or if they heard what he said and somehow believe they're telling the truth, they're stupid.

Yes. Or maybe it was last week.

I sort of doubt it. While it was quoted on one news show and maybe more when he said it at a local rally, if he says the same thing at the convention, it will be big news. For political reasons, he shouldnt' be doing his own dirty work.

Good questions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 30, 2:37pm, snipped-for-privacy@bubba.com wrote:

BS. Romney is spot on. The rest of it might even be worse:
"Im 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."
In my book, that's pretty bad. I don't want to hear a president dismissing hard works and being smart as a key component of success. In that whole section, he dismisses individual achievement and celebrates what govt does.
>Usually candidates have someone else

I don't know for sure. And neither do you. First, he dismisses hard work as a key component of success. Then he dismisses being smart. Then he celebrates that govt builds roads and bridges. Then he says "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" It's not clear to me what he's referring to. It may not even have been clear to Obama himself. But it's clear right in that speech that he diminishes individual achievement, celebrates govt achievement. So is it that unreasonable to think that he didn't mean that you the individual didn't build that business. I think not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

re: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" It's not clear to me what he's referring to."
Because you don't want it to be clear. I have no problem - regardless of what side I choose to vote for this November - understanding that he was referring to the roads and bridges.
Go back and watch the video, see/hear the pauses and the preceeding sentences and you shouldn't have any problem coming to the same conclusion that so many other people have - unless you don't want to come to that conclusion for other reasons.
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it:
Regardless of whether one chooses to believe that Obama dismisses hard work and intelligence or not, it is quite evident that the words "You didn't build that" are being used out of context for political gain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Because you want to believe that's what he meant. Like many others here, I'm not so sure. Not when just a couple sentences before he dismisses hard work and being smart as components of success. That is consistent with the "You are not responsible for building that business" theme. Like I said before, I'm not sure Obama himself knows what exactly he meant. But for someone that has been anti-business since day one, those words come easy.

Oh, I see. Unless one agrees with YOUR interpretation, then they are wrong and have ulterior motives. I did see and hear the previous sentences where he dismisses hard work and being smart. Given that and the fact that he's been anti-business from day one, I choose not to believe that he was referring back to roads and bridges.
BTW, roads and bridges would be plural. He didn't say "If you've got a business, you didn't build them" He said "If you've got a business, you didn't build that"

You can say it all you want. It doesn't make it so. And it's not the only interpretation of what he meant that's plausible. It's also curious how you're focused on the one little part of that speech and apparently think dismissing hard work and being smart, which immediately preceeded the comment and set the tone is OK. I think the whole thing is despicable and the whole mindset it represents is not what I want in a president.
Obama has been at war with business since day one. He said he'd bankrupt the coal energy producers before he was even elected. He's bitched about drug companies, insurance companies, wall street, oil companies, the Keystone pipeline. And he especially doesn't like Bain Capital and has viciously attacked it with a pack of lies. Face it, he just doesn't like capitalism period. So, like many others, I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Also, if you think this is some big, prime example of lying or distortion in a campaign, then you must not have seen much of what has been going on in this or most other campaigns. I didn't see you bitching about the Obama cancer ad. Or the attacks on Bain Capital. Or the lies that Romney has "secret" Swiss bank accounts. Where is your outrage about that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perhaps I worded that wrong in the heat of the moment. What I meant was that the phrase *could be* interpreted to be referring to the roads and bridges if one chooses to. It's the steadfast refusal to accept the fact that he stumbled with his sentence structure and the firm belief - or worse, the fake belief - that he was referring to the businesses that bothers me.
In my heart of hearts I believe that there are many members of the GOP that believe he was referring to the roads and bridges yet are using the gaffe for political means.
It's perfectly acceptable to feel that Obama is anti-business but when someone uses a misspoken phrase against the speaker it tells me that they can't make their argument any other way than in an underhanded manner.

That's the whole problem with the speech and what gave the GOP the ability to take the phrase out of context. When it first came out it was labeled a gaffe and the GOP seized it and ran with it. Had he used the word "them" when he referred to the roads and bridges, instead of "that" we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It's obvious, and not just to me, that he stumbled over his words and left himself vulnerable.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, now you have me confused. If it "could be" interpreted to be referring to the roads and bridges, then the alternate possibility is that it could be interpreted to mean it's referring to the business. So, given that, what do you expect? Obama has attacked Romney relentlessly and given him no quarter. Much of it, ie the attacks on Bain Capital, the cancer ad, talking about "secret" Swiss bank accounts, which is a lie, have been over the top. Yet when the GOP uses Obama's own words, which it seems you admit are open to multiple interpretations, against Obama, you find that over the top and unfair?

As I said from the start, I'm not sure what he was actually referring to. I"'m not sure even Obama knows. But that type of rhetoric, that group effort, govt, anything trumps individualism is a hallmark of his beliefs. Whatever he was referring to, the rest of it is dismissive of hard work and being smart and that isn't inconsistent with claiming that someone's hard work didn't really build the business. So, sorry, but I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt. If it were a criminal trial I would. Maybe even a civil trial. But is it unfair for the GOP to use it? Hell no.

Assuming that's true, that surprises you? Look at some of the things Obama himself has done. Paul Ryan came up with a budget plan to address the deficit. At least he has a plan. Obama has no plan. Did Obama meet with him, discuss it in good faith? No. He called a press conference, invited Paul Ryan to sit in the front row, then excoriated him.
The PAC started and run by a former White House official created that cancer ad which is a despicable lie. Did Obama say the ad is unfair, a lie and ask that they pull it?
What about the attacks on Bain Capital, turning them into some evil villain? Bain Capital built Sports Authority, Staples, Steel Dynamics. Bain itself, which Romney built is a success. Obama is actively tearing that down and with it American capitalism and entrepeneurship. If he can say that Romney didn't build business, it's it so hard to believe that he could have meant no business owner deserves the credit for the business they built, because the govt, external forces, played an even larger role?
So, why would you be surprised that the GOP isn't going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on his recent speech? If anything the convention has been remarkably reserved and tame. Did you get all pissed off years ago when Ann Richards got up at the Democratic convention and said George Bush 41, a war hero, who has served his country in countless govt roles, was "born with a silver foot in his mouth"?

I don't see anything underhanded about it. Not in the least.

So, if it's open to multiple interpretations, why in the hell should the GOP give him the benefit of the doubt? Has Obama called for the cancer ad lie to be pulled? Geez, is the GOP just supposed to roll over? What should they do next to be fair? Invite an Obama campaign official to their strategy meetings?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When millions of Americans find a statement obviously meaning something, why do you keep defending the foreign born Marxist in chief, who's governing against the will of the people?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Perhaps I worded that wrong in the heat of the moment. What I meant was that the phrase *could be* interpreted to be referring to the roads and bridges if one chooses to. It's the steadfast refusal to accept the fact that he stumbled with his sentence structure and the firm belief - or worse, the fake belief - that he was referring to the businesses that bothers me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
People have been making the argument for years. Now, the Marxist in Chief is finally saying what he's been doing all along.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
In my heart of hearts I believe that there are many members of the GOP that believe he was referring to the roads and bridges yet are using the gaffe for political means.
It's perfectly acceptable to feel that Obama is anti-business but when someone uses a misspoken phrase against the speaker it tells me that they can't make their argument any other way than in an underhanded manner.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To me it means that many hardworking people do not have the success that some do have. Hard work by itself is very often not sufficient to make it. If your lead turns out to be false (cold nuclear fusion so far is still a ways off), no matter the hard work, you may be chasing phantoms (Morris, that is NOT a dig at you). Worse, sometimes someone's hard work is really helped along by luck, or by a mentor who takes an interest, maybe an alignment of the stars, a good patent lawyer, etc etc. Now, all that doesn't diminish hard work, right? I know I've worked hard, perhaps not every day of my life, but hard nonetheless. But I know I would be in real bad shape if I hadn't had luck in some of the ways I listed.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Watch it again, and see what you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZO7XOpwa8

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
How many of them (and how many in this NG) know what Obama was referring to when he said "You didn't build that?"
Hint: He was *not* referring to successful businesses when he said "You didn't build that", but that is the implication that was portrayed in every GOP speech I've heard this week, and I'm sure will be used for the rest of the campaign.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, tell us.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZO7XOpwa8

Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
I'm not saying it's not a great political strategy, but I do wonder how many GOP, Dem and undecided voters know what context the phrase was actually used in. I also wonder how many of the RNC speakers actually know the true context.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

[snip]
My view is that it doesn't really matter how the next president gets the budget under control or what he has to be cut. More than specific programs being eliminated or reductions here or there, is that fiscal sanity be restored to the federal government (state governments, too, but that's another story).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hear, hear. Most states are required by law to have balanced budgets (that's what they call the guidelines for spending and hopes for income) at least on paper. How that is achieved is sometimes draconian, smoke and mirrors, one-time revenues, delaying to pay into pension funds, etc. The Federal government is not under that (paper) obligation. And that is often good too. Sometimes something comes up that needs money right away. In my household, I'd break a piggybank for that, or ask for a home equity loan. The Feds do it in their way. Sometimes my household gets a bonus, eg my tax return turns a "profit" (ie an interest-free loan to the IRS). But overall, you are right that sanity needs to be restored. In the recent past, Congress should have raised taxes, not cut them when they started the last few wars. Both Reps and Dems. Or they shouldn't have started the wars, despite whatever the good or bad reasons were.
I don't think anyone counted on the housing bubble to burst, despite the record of all the previous bubbles that burst (savings and loan, dotcom). But the housing bubble burst, and the Fed didn't see fit to rescue Lehman. Since most of the word had been following the Wall Street bankers' lead in false paper, Spain, and other countries fell, Greece and Italy helped further by tax evasion and plain financial lying. Here in the US, since so much of the economy is consumer dependent, killing housing was an ENORMOUS blow. The stupidity NOT to take all the under water mortgages and write it off like the savings and loan debacle, has resulted in this long drawn-out process of getting home sales and prices restored (it isn't there by far yet). Maybe I am wrong (I am not an economist) but as long as housing isn't much more healthy than it is now, I don't think the economy will really pick up. Doing my part by getting my driveway widened and repaved. Just helped the town with $50 for the permit.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First, the total cost of over a decade for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is around $1.3tril. That's an entire decade, not one year. Yet, the deficit just this year is that much. We've been through this a hundred times and the myth that wars are a major source of the deficits has been demolished every time. So, I don't understand why it keeps coming up as the first thing that's blamed and interjected into the discussion.
As for raising taxes, it's not now, nor has it ever been a TAX problem. It's a SPENDING problem. Tax revenue today is HIGHER than it was in 2007 or 2008. That right, more tax money is coming in now than it was back then. In April the federal govt had it's highest revenue month in history. In 2007, with both of those wars raging, the deficit was just $160bil. It had been steadily declining, year by year. Now, 4 years later, the deficit is $1.3 tril with no signs of coming down.
The problem is that SPENDING is out of control. And it's been proven time and time again, that sending more money to Washington in the hope that it will reduce the deficit is a failure. It only gets spent and leads to even more govt programs. Obamacare ring a bell? Does anyone have a clue what THAT is going to cost, five, ten years from now? Like any other govt social program it's going to wind up costing 2x, 3x, or 10X what was projected. This isn't rocket science. The solution is not higher taxes, it's LOWER SPENDING.
And with tax revenues now back to where they were before the recession, blaming the recession and Bush 4 years later like Obama is trying to do is pure fantasy. At this point in the Reagan recovery we were creating 400,000 jobs a month. One month we hit $1.2mil. Now when we get 160,000 it's a high point and we;ve been averaging well below that this year. Sad, very, very sad. But it's what you get when you have an incompetent govt policy and a president who sees any crisis as just another opportunity to get more of what he wants in the way of transforming the country.
In case you don't get that, I'll spell it out for you. There is a reason he doesn't care about the deficit or national debt. A reason he hasn't had a budget passed in 3 years. A reason he never even mentions it. He figures that he'll just keep piling on the social programs, piling on the spending. When the shit really hits the fan and the US is like Greece, he can continue to wage class warfare that he has already started and use that as an excuse to take assets from those who are successful. It fits in perfectly with everything he's doing. "You didn't build that" So, let us have it. When the shit hits the fan, he;ll be right there proposing a wealth tax of say a mere 10% to make everything right. And then it will be 20%. Get the picture?

Another example of where big govt NJ gets you. I'll bet you;ll here from many of the boys in other part of the country that no such permit is required where they live.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
First, libs and cons have totally different agendas. So, when a lib says "cuts the deficit" that's not what s/he wants.
Second, libs operate by emotion. Cons operate by facts and reasoning. The fact that A, B, C, doesn't change the emotions that libs carry around.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Oh Han, oh Han, why can't you libs learn?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.