Posted by Pat Cunningham on Jul 30, 2012 in Uncategorized | 5 comments
This video, which I affixed to a previous post as an update, merits stand-alone treatment.
So they’re denouncing a speech denouncing a speech by re-contextualizing a speech they claimed was taken out of context in a speech that they are simultaneously taking out of context, one in which the context of the speech that has now been re-contexualized was denounced?
Is this a riddle?
Poor Harry! Yet again, he demonstates his inability to recognize that Romney has said the same thing Obama said in a speech the wingnuts have distorted and condemned.
These knee-jerk Obamaphobes are beyond help.
No, Pat. They aren’t saying the same thing. What Mr. Romney said was a non sequitur, and if you viewed it in it’s original context (!?) you’d see that was his exact point. The president’s point was not that infrastructure is necessary (the non sequitur), it was that the state has a larger role in one’s success than his own individual acheivements. See Charles Krauthammer’s response (youtube it), as it matches up exactly with what I’ve been telling you, and no I didn’t parrot him. I discovered it after I came to my own conclusion.
Again, this discussion (that you seem to be dead set against having… almost in an brutish anti-intellectual manner) is one of the cornerstones of the ideological devide.
I regret to inform you I won’t be posting anymore because you’re website wants to squeeze $12.95 a month out of me to read your drivel and mock your incompetence.
I’d like to leave you with a comment I’ve already made several times. I am genuinely shocked at how immature a man of your age acts. It actually kinda depresses me. I can only assume it is a way to hide your weighty and burdensome ignorance.
When you state that the President’s words meant “the state has a larger role in one’s success than his own individual acheivements” (sic), you are being disingenuous in the extreme. You KNOW exactly what Obama’s point was, although perhaps it wasn’t as artfully expressed as you’d like. He was making the point that a society–with its infrastructure, laws providing protection, education, etc.–make it possible for ALL small business owners to achieve what they want to achieve. This painfully willful ignorance expressed by those who don’t get this is the truly depressing aspect of today’s political culture. That you resort to ad-hominem remarks regarding Pat’s maturity level speaks even more loudly about you than you care to think. Projection is an ugly, ugly thing.
Harry says: “The president’s point was not that infrastructure is necessary (the non sequitur), it was that the state has a larger role in one’s success than his own individual acheivements.”
I call BS. Obama was not saying the state has a larger role than the business owner, he was pointing out that the whole nation, over many years, has built (with taxes!) the foundation of an economic system that can allow these “individual acheivements” to occur at all.
In other words, own up to what the government has very sucessfully contributed to the growth of the private economy.
Moreover, Obama asserts (as had many Republicans until a black man was elected) that those who get wealthy in this shared economic system should contribute fairly to maintain it for future generations of individual acheivers.
And fairly means more than 15% for private equity tycoons.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of followup comments via email. You can also subscribe without commenting.