You didn't build your own business?

[Matthitjah]

No, you posted a link to a site full of someones opinion and spin on the subject. Nice try though.

Would you care to comment on the glaring ommissions?

Let's read the link together, shall we?

All of the below is from http://www.politifac...-build-comment/

Mitt Romney and other Republicans have pounced on a line from President Barack Obama that they say denigrates people who create and build businesses.

It's stating Romney & Republicans are upset over a line in Obama's speech that they say denigrates people who create & build businesses.

I see literally no way how it can be taken to be "full of someones opinion and spin on the subject".

As Romney put it in a July 17, 2012, speech in Irwin, Pa., Obama "said this; ‘If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.’"

So this is stating what Romney put in a July 17th speech. Once again I fail to see how this is "full of someones opinion and spin on the subject".

...the rest of the article is word for word verbatim several paragraphs from Obama's speech, which is identical to the link you got from your page.

Perhaps you also consider verbatim transcript of Obama's speech to be a website's "spin and opinion"?

---

Whenever you are willing to have an honest conversation with me let me know. You continue to call me names (like spinmeister) and continue to demonstrate your inability to read what I'm posting before leaping to false conclusions. This is now at least the 3rd time I've asked you to stop name-calling. Frankly it's beginning to border on harassment.

Listen, when someone puts a spin on the facts it is common in our culture to call someone a spinmeister. Meanwhile, being in denial is an actual state of conciousness.

I don't get how I am insulting you unless there is in fact some truth there.

You are the one stating that the President did not in fact say what he said and it isn't just the Republicans who took it that way in context. It appears to be resonating in the larger society. It has offended people because it is arrogant and demeaning to all those who understand the fruit of their labor when it comes to their individual Liberty.

It was an attack against the foundation of this Nation and people have understood it as such.

As my Brother Ed has stated. Please step forward and embarce your Ideology. Explain to us, as the President has and has been rejected in this very speech, how Big Government will care for us and solve all of our Individual and unique problems.

My solution is to follow Jesus Christ and Righteousness. What's yours?

[Oh Hamburgers!]

What I find odd in discussions like this is that supporters of the president want to deny his worldview.

Obama supporters: Be honest with yourselves and others - Obama has a worldview and it is based in part on big government solutions to problems.

Obviously you support the man - so support his policies. Quit denying them; rather, go ahead and embrace them. Rather than spend time denying his clear intentions with pleas of "that was taken out of context, blah blah blah", tell us WHY big government solutions are to be desired and embraced.

Blessings!

-Ed

I do support Obama over Romney, but I don't support all of his policies. Voting for someone over the alternatives doesn't mean that I should (or do) embrace everything he does. Obama's broken many promises in the past (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/) some of them I'm glad he broke b/c I didn't agree with them, other's I'm unhappy he kept.

The problem I have with this attack on Obama's speech is it isn't honest. Critics aren't arguing against the entire content of the speech, they are taking a single snippet (that I agree was very poorly worded) and then attacking that as a stand alone item, as if Obama was saying that small businesses are not responsible for their existence. It's akin to when people said Obama didn't know there were 50 states in the union, it's making a dishonest claim based on an intentionally misleading lack of context.

Did anyone ever see the Simpsons episode called "Rock Bottom" or "Babysitter and the Beast" or something, where the interviewer put clips together to make it appear that Homer was saying something he wasn't? I'd post the youtube link of the clip but I know that's not allowed.. but anyways that's essentially what is being done to Obama here. His words are being to mean something that he didn't mean, and then he's being attacked for it. I don't mind someone being attacked for something they actually said and meant, but I find this specific instance to be dishonest.

But anyways, his actual point I think is pretty clear in his speech in the following paragraphs:

"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.

"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the G.I. Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."

I agree with these statements - does anyone not? Our country succeeds through individual efforts as well as working together to accomplish things that couldn't be done alone. I don't even see how that's a contentious idea.

So in this instance I do agree with the theme of his speech.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Listen, when someone puts a spin on the facts it is common in our culture to call someone a spinmeister. Meanwhile, being in denial is an actual state of conciousness.

I've just shown you how there wasn't spin in the article as you claimed.

I don't get how I am insulting you unless there is in fact some truth there.

You're being insulting because you are attacking my character without providing evidence. I've already offered my topic () where you can ask me to defend/explain previous things I've written on these boards, and I've yet to see you post there. I've asked you (many times) to explain what specifically you take issue with regarding my positions, and I very rarely get a response that doesn't contort the language of my text.

You are the one stating that the President did not in fact say what he said and it isn't just the Republicans who took it that way in context. It appears to be resonating in the larger society. It has offended people because it is arrogant and demeaning to all those who understand the fruit of their labor when it comes to their individual Liberty.

It was an attack against the foundation of this Nation and people have understood it as such.

I am stating that taking the single line of ‘If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.’" outside of the context of the rest of the speech is dishonest. Similar to what you tend to do with me, taking that single line as a stand alone twists the meaning. When you look at (and listen to) the line in context with the paragraphs around it, you see he is referring to the roads & infrastructure of the country as the "that" that wasn't built by businesses.

It's classic "hearing what you want to hear", and taking advantage of the lack of context is dirty politics, regardless of who is doing it.

It's not attacking Obama's actual viewpoints, it's giving Obama a viewpoint he doesn't possess and attacking him as if he did possess it.

My solution is to follow Jesus Christ and Righteousness. What's yours?

The same; I too follow a lot of the teachings of Jesus in my everyday life.

[SavedByGrace1981]

I do support Obama over Romney, but I don't support all of his policies. Voting for someone over the alternatives doesn't mean that I should (or do) embrace everything he does. Obama's broken many promises in the past (http://www.politifac...mises/obameter/) some of them I'm glad he broke b/c I didn't agree with them, other's I'm unhappy he kept.

Put aside for a moment the fact that it's Obama, and let's discuss his philosophy. After all, it's not a new one - it dates back to at least the 19th Century. It's the philosophy that says - to put it in very basic terms - all problems have a "big government" solution.

It's a philosophy that I vehemently disagree with, but I am certainly in the minority. I am interestested in hearing opposing viewpoints.

The problem I have with this attack on Obama's speech is it isn't honest. Critics aren't arguing against the entire content of the speech, they are taking a single snippet (that I agree was very poorly worded) and then attacking that as a stand alone item, as if Obama was saying that small businesses are not responsible for their existence. It's akin to when people said Obama didn't know there were 50 states in the union, it's making a dishonest claim based on an intentionally misleading lack of context.

We can quibble as to the degree of honesty in the attack on the speech, but that misses the larger point.

Here we are in the midst of "SILLY SEASON" - where we talk about the merits of eating dogs versus putting dogs on the roofs of cars. Where the Chicago mayor (a former Obama aide) talks about banning Chick-Fil-A because it's owner had the ***GASP*** gall to express his views on traditional marriage, while his city literally erupts in flames of gang violence.

So in the midst of this - I don't even know what to call it - satire? In the midst of this INSANITY, we have a snippet that DOES illustrate a belief that Obama has. He DOES look to government FIRST for solutions. You cannot deny that.

THIS SPEECH ILLUSTRATED THAT - THAT is why it simply will not go away.

And it is incumbent upon Obama's supporters to tell us WHY big government solutions are always preferred.

Blessings!

-Ed

[georgedrw81]

Nowdays politicians talk for the tv camera and once that is off then what was said and what is done is different. In Europe they try to put the American way of doing things and does not work. In the US they do the opposite and does not work either. A business does not necessarily need a road or electricity to work. For example a fisherman catches fish which is then sold to the village in inland.

Blessings

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Put aside for a moment the fact that it's Obama, and let's discuss his philosophy. After all, it's not a new one - it dates back to at least the 19th Century. It's the philosophy that says - to put it in very basic terms - all problems have a "big government" solution.

It's a philosophy that I vehemently disagree with, but I am certainly in the minority. I am interestested in hearing opposing viewpoints.

I think having a 'big government solution' tends to legitimize things, but I also agree with you that big government isn't always the best answer. I like to think that government works best when it builds the exoskeleton/safety net, while private citizens and businesses flesh things out.

We can quibble as to the degree of honesty in the attack on the speech, but that misses the larger point.

Here we are in the midst of "SILLY SEASON" - where we talk about the merits of eating dogs versus putting dogs on the roofs of cars. Where the Chicago mayor (a former Obama aide) talks about banning Chick-Fil-A because it's owner had the ***GASP*** gall to express his views on traditional marriage, while his city literally erupts in flames of gang violence.

So in the midst of this - I don't even know what to call it - satire? In the midst of this INSANITY, we have a snippet that DOES illustrate a belief that Obama has. He DOES look to government FIRST for solutions. You cannot deny that.

THIS SPEECH ILLUSTRATED THAT - THAT is why it simply will not go away.

And it is incumbent upon Obama's supporters to tell us WHY big government solutions are always preferred.

Blessings!

-Ed

Obama does rely on government for solutions, yes I don't deny that.

The speech was pro government, yes, BUT it wasn't as extreme as people who are using this line are trying to make it out to be. If the discussion was focused on the merits of government vs private sector I'd have no problem with it. However like you said it's campaign/silly season and people are not talking about the speech in a reasonable manner, they are saying "OBAMA DOESN'T THINK YOU WORKED FOR YOUR SMALL BUSINESS" which is just a load of crud.

I think that's mainly my point: let's argue the actual issues, not the boiled down mischaracterized versions of what people are making those to be. And I want that for both Obama AND Romney.

[Matthitjah]

Listen, when someone puts a spin on the facts it is common in our culture to call someone a spinmeister. Meanwhile, being in denial is an actual state of conciousness.

I've just shown you how there wasn't spin in the article as you claimed.

I don't get how I am insulting you unless there is in fact some truth there.

You're being insulting because you are attacking my character without providing evidence. I've already offered my topic () where you can ask me to defend/explain previous things I've written on these boards, and I've yet to see you post there. I've asked you (many times) to explain what specifically you take issue with regarding my positions, and I very rarely get a response that doesn't contort the language of my text.

You are the one stating that the President did not in fact say what he said and it isn't just the Republicans who took it that way in context. It appears to be resonating in the larger society. It has offended people because it is arrogant and demeaning to all those who understand the fruit of their labor when it comes to their individual Liberty.

It was an attack against the foundation of this Nation and people have understood it as such.

I am stating that taking the single line of ‘If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.’" outside of the context of the rest of the speech is dishonest. Similar to what you tend to do with me, taking that single line as a stand alone twists the meaning. When you look at (and listen to) the line in context with the paragraphs around it, you see he is referring to the roads & infrastructure of the country as the "that" that wasn't built by businesses.

It's classic "hearing what you want to hear", and taking advantage of the lack of context is dirty politics, regardless of who is doing it.

It's not attacking Obama's actual viewpoints, it's giving Obama a viewpoint he doesn't possess and attacking him as if he did possess it.

My solution is to follow Jesus Christ and Righteousness. What's yours?

The same; I too follow a lot of the teachings of Jesus in my everyday life.

What value do Jesus'es teachings have if you don't believe Him and He is a liar?

Aside from that, it's very frustrating when someone jumps in thread after thread and mischarecterizes while spinning the facts and leading the discussion off focus, isn't it?

Oh'' and in regards to what you've said to Brother Ed, Yes, Obama is saying, "That he doesn't believe for one minute that you've worked hard to build your business. " He thinks that those who have succeeded have done so either by stealing prosperity from someone else or just merely the luck of the draw and he's been saying so for three and half years now.

"Spread around the wealth there Joe the Plumber." (Paraphrasing)

[Oh Hamburgers!]

What value do Jesus'es teachings have if you don't believe Him and He is a liar?

I find a lot of value in Jesus' teachings actually.

Aside from that, it's very frustrating when someone jumps in thread after thread and mischarecterizes while spinning the facts and leading the discussion off focus, isn't it?

It is actually, it's quite frustrating. If you have any reason to believe I am doing that please quote specific examples of it and let's talk about it in my thread that I've already posted a few times, and I'd be happy to discuss it.

Otherwise, I suggest you look up 'psychological projection'.

Oh'' and in regards to what you've said to Brother Ed, Yes, Obama is saying, "That he doesn't believe for one minute that you've worked hard to build your business. " He thinks that those who have succeeded have done so either by stealing prosperity from someone else or just merely the luck of the draw and he's been saying so for three and half years now.

"Spread around the wealth there Joe the Plumber." (Paraphrasing)

I think if you listened to his whole speech you would get a different viewpoint, but you're entitled to your opinion.

[ted]

Debating the facts is great stuff. Calling each other names isn't so hot though.

No one's politics should ever cause someone to lower themselves to personal attacks. At the worst, this President will be gone in 5-6 more years and we'll move on. At best, we'll be taken up by a returning King.

All the little stuff in between can be talked about in such a way where even the most ardent of political foes can still share a coffee and a smile.

It's possible

[Matthitjah]

What value do Jesus'es teachings have if you don't believe Him and He is a liar?

I find a lot of value in Jesus' teachings actually.

What value is there to any of His teachings if the man was a liar?

He claimed to be the incarnate Son of God. God in the Flesh. God and man.

If He were lying about that then the rest of what He has had to say amounts to nothing because He has said things that indicate that He could save us from our sins and that He expects us to be Holy. That He is in fact, The Judge.

Please explain.