Logic Destroys Obama's Roanoke Declaration

[OohPooPahDoo]

...The antecedent of "that" isn't in the same sentence. That's how you're able to quote the sentence exactly but still leave off the antecedent...

Please tell me if you really believe that Obama meant:

...If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build roads and bridges. Somebody else made roads and bridges happen...

OK, I know Obama said that's what he meant, but let's face it. It's even crazier than the other way. I mean, how can not having a business possibly be necessary in order to build roads and bridges?

I have boldened the antecedents and underlined the pronoun.

"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.

Technically, he should have used "those" instead of "that" - so why don't you lynch him for it?

You miss the point entirely. He explicitly stated it "The point is" in case there was any confusion. Unfortunately Mitt Romney and the other folks that tell you what to think didn't see fit to include it in their sound byte. They probably rightly figured you wouldn't be able to pay attention for that long, anyway. You've probably even given up on reading the post by now and will never read these words.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

 

[Rozman]

Government has no money until they get it from us in taxes.
We pay for the roads and bridges and tunnels.And we continue to pay
for them with tolls.Government didn't make businesses succeed or fail.
But Obama is a big government guy and loves to take credit for what ever
he can find.So HE being government wants businesses to be grateful
to him for their success.

“If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen”

Barack Hussein Obama

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Government has no money until they get it from us in taxes.

There are other forms of government revenue, but yes, taxes are - today - the primary source. In the past, the federal government has actually relied more on sale of land. Then there's always criminal and civil fines - which while a small portion - are a part of government revenue.

We pay for the roads and bridges and tunnels.And we continue to pay
for them with tolls.Government didn't make businesses succeed or fail.
But Obama is a big government guy and loves to take credit for what ever
he can find.So HE being government wants businesses to be grateful
to him for their success.

Businesses should be grateful that the People have acted through their government in a way that helps business, yes.

 

[Wiseacre]

The point behind Obama's Roanoke speech was to draw support for raising taxes on successful, people, aka the ones making 200K and up. Hell, everybody in life gets a little help or support from somebody, nobody denies that. And sure, the gov't at some level builds roads and bridges with our tax dollars, nobody denies that either. But those roads and bridges, and other infrastructure, and every other service the gov't provides are paid for by the taxpayers, of which the successful people already pay more in taxes than everyone else.

The real question here is whether the successful people should pay more than they already do, Obama is trying to make the case that they should owe more. I think that's a pretty flimsy argument, since we've already got a progressive tax code; there's not much logic in what he said, utlimately it boils down to the same old tax the rich class warfare he always spouts.

But the way he said it shows what he really believes: that gov't deserves credit for the success of it's citizens. Which is total nonsense, those roads and bridges are there for everybody; if a successful person finds a way to make money using our infrastructure, that is to their credit, not the gov'ts. The gov't deserves no blame for business failures, we don't send a check to them and tell them 'better luck next time'. Neither does gov't deserve any credit at all for those who do not fail.

 

[Wiseacre]

" Businesses should be grateful that the People have acted through their government in a way that helps business, yes. "

Everybody should be grateful that the gov't helps business, which lately they haven't been doing very well at.

 

[expat_panama]

...PLEASE.....refrain from injecting logic into any discussion of Obamanomics. Thank you.

LOL!!! Like hearing the drunk yell at the pedestrian "HEY IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY DRIVING STAY OFF THE SIDEWALK!"

 

[expat_panama]

...I have boldened the antecedents and underlined the pronoun.

"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.

Technically, he should have used "those" instead of "that" ...

The day after the speech Obama swapped in only the 'road'n'bridges' antecedent, so 'those' wasn't needed.

...why don't you lynch him for it?...

Ah yes, leftist rhetoric always seems to end up with violence, like with had with Occupy Wall Street's rapes, murder, huh, they even tried to blow up 'roads'n'bridges now that I think of it...

...He explicitly stated it "The point is" in case there was any confusion...

Hey, if it's actual wording you want, we can do that...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwWW2DQS_DU&feature=channel&list=UL]"The More Context You Get, The Worse It Sounds" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Rozman]

Bottom line the President screwed up.
All the lefties are covering for him.Cleaning up the mess.
There is no possible way they will let anything negative touch this guy.
He really should have said "those" meaning roads and bridges and such.
That really would have made more sense then to say "that" meaning businesses.
I agree with this argument.

But there is a big part of me that really believes that he holds those who fight big government to make
a business work for a person and their families and have the chance to be less dependent on government in contempt.He despises those people.He wants government to be loved and worshiped and in return
government will provide for it's loyal subjects.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Government has no money until they get it from us in taxes.

There are other forms of government revenue, but yes, taxes are - today - the primary source. In the past, the federal government has actually relied more on sale of land. Then there's always criminal and civil fines - which while a small portion - are a part of government revenue.

We pay for the roads and bridges and tunnels.And we continue to pay
for them with tolls.Government didn't make businesses succeed or fail.
But Obama is a big government guy and loves to take credit for what ever
he can find.So HE being government wants businesses to be grateful
to him for their success.

Businesses should be grateful that the People have acted through their government in a way that helps business, yes.

Take a look at the connection between direct taxation, Progressives, and Karl Marx:


1. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years. David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.



2. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…

a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.



3. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The point behind Obama's Roanoke speech was to draw support for raising taxes on successful, people, aka the ones making 200K and up. Hell, everybody in life gets a little help or support from somebody, nobody denies that. And sure, the gov't at some level builds roads and bridges with our tax dollars, nobody denies that either. But those roads and bridges, and other infrastructure, and every other service the gov't provides are paid for by the taxpayers, of which the successful people already pay more in taxes than everyone else.

The real question here is whether the successful people should pay more than they already do, Obama is trying to make the case that they should owe more. I think that's a pretty flimsy argument, since we've already got a progressive tax code; there's not much logic in what he said, utlimately it boils down to the same old tax the rich class warfare he always spouts.

But the way he said it shows what he really believes: that gov't deserves credit for the success of it's citizens. Which is total nonsense, those roads and bridges are there for everybody; if a successful person finds a way to make money using our infrastructure, that is to their credit, not the gov'ts. The gov't deserves no blame for business failures, we don't send a check to them and tell them 'better luck next time'. Neither does gov't deserve any credit at all for those who do not fail.

Have you seen the vid at this site in which Barack Obama, Sr. suggests that the government can take 100% of the income of the rich?


...no, not marginal rate.....the total income.


Barack Obama Sr: 'Nothing Stopping Gov't From Taxing 100% Of Income'



The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...PLEASE.....refrain from injecting logic into any discussion of Obamanomics. Thank you.

LOL!!! Like hearing the drunk yell at the pedestrian "HEY IF YOU DON'T LIKE MY DRIVING STAY OFF THE SIDEWALK!"

That is both funny and true...but this is a Lord Byron moment:
“And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'Tis that I may not weep”


Apparently intelligent folks leaping to defend what is clearly an untruth....and they believe what they are saying!!!

 

[Wiseacre]

The point behind Obama's Roanoke speech was to draw support for raising taxes on successful, people, aka the ones making 200K and up. Hell, everybody in life gets a little help or support from somebody, nobody denies that. And sure, the gov't at some level builds roads and bridges with our tax dollars, nobody denies that either. But those roads and bridges, and other infrastructure, and every other service the gov't provides are paid for by the taxpayers, of which the successful people already pay more in taxes than everyone else.

The real question here is whether the successful people should pay more than they already do, Obama is trying to make the case that they should owe more. I think that's a pretty flimsy argument, since we've already got a progressive tax code; there's not much logic in what he said, utlimately it boils down to the same old tax the rich class warfare he always spouts.

But the way he said it shows what he really believes: that gov't deserves credit for the success of it's citizens. Which is total nonsense, those roads and bridges are there for everybody; if a successful person finds a way to make money using our infrastructure, that is to their credit, not the gov'ts. The gov't deserves no blame for business failures, we don't send a check to them and tell them 'better luck next time'. Neither does gov't deserve any credit at all for those who do not fail.

Have you seen the vid at this site in which Barack Obama, Sr. suggests that the government can take 100% of the income of the rich?


...no, not marginal rate.....the total income.


Barack Obama Sr: 'Nothing Stopping Gov't From Taxing 100% Of Income'



The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Not surprised at all - I'm sure both Obamas would be perfectly happy taking everybody's money and redistributing it to whoever they think is most deserving. Or would be if Obama Sr was still alive.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

this is true, Bill Gates invented Windows and, together, his cleaning lady cleaned his toilet. The more we equate the two jobs the poorer we will become! The more we appreciate and reward the vast differences the richer we will all become, together.

A liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Government has no money until they get it from us in taxes.

There are other forms of government revenue, but yes, taxes are - today - the primary source. In the past, the federal government has actually relied more on sale of land. Then there's always criminal and civil fines - which while a small portion - are a part of government revenue.

We pay for the roads and bridges and tunnels.And we continue to pay
for them with tolls.Government didn't make businesses succeed or fail.
But Obama is a big government guy and loves to take credit for what ever
he can find.So HE being government wants businesses to be grateful
to him for their success.

Businesses should be grateful that the People have acted through their government in a way that helps business, yes.

Take a look at the connection...

"Connection" is code for "BULLSHIT" - so I stopped reading there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The antecedent of "that" isn't in the same sentence. That's how you're able to quote the sentence exactly but still leave off the antecedent.




That is what it means. Its in the sentence(s) immediately preceding the one you quoted.

I've seen some of the dumb things you've posted.....but even you can't believe the defense of this dolt that you're trying to provide.....

.....can you?

Just tell me you can....I've got my next post ready.

There's nothing that needs defending. The antecedent is in the sentence(s) before the one you quoted. I'm sorry you're wrong.

We have two choices, either Obama properly matched the pronoun with the antecedant of business, or he improperly matched it the the antecedent of roads and bridges. Your position is that the greatest orator in history doesn't understand basic rules of grammar. Mine is he does.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I've seen some of the dumb things you've posted.....but even you can't believe the defense of this dolt that you're trying to provide.....

.....can you?

Just tell me you can....I've got my next post ready.

There's nothing that needs defending. The antecedent is in the sentence(s) before the one you quoted. I'm sorry you're wrong.

We have two choices, either Obama properly matched the pronoun with the antecedant of business, or he improperly matched it the the antecedent of roads and bridges. Your position is that the greatest orator in history doesn't understand basic rules of grammar. Mine is he does.

He used the wrong pronoun, you're correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are other forms of government revenue, but yes, taxes are - today - the primary source. In the past, the federal government has actually relied more on sale of land. Then there's always criminal and civil fines - which while a small portion - are a part of government revenue.



Businesses should be grateful that the People have acted through their government in a way that helps business, yes.

Take a look at the connection...

"Connection" is code for "BULLSHIT" - so I stopped reading there.

I love the excuses uneducated folks like you use to avoid learning.....
...and avoid having to deal with different ideas.

This is why you'll never be any more than a second rater.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's what he said (from here):That may be what we all understood but the next day he announced that wasn't what he meant; he told everyone the word "that" in "you didn't build that" was not referring to the "business" but rather to the "roads and bridges". So what he now says he meant to say was----which is even goofier. He'll probably change it again when he finds out that virtually all roads and bridges are build by private construction businesses.

Fact of the matter is, we did build the roads and bridges. If not for our tax dollars, good luck getting anywhere when it rains.

If you do not believe in what was actually said, ie, that business is built on the infrastructure in place (roads, bridges, electrical infrastructure, education, military, police, etc, etc) then you are looking for the libertarian ideal, which does not exist. You are looking at Somalia.
This speech was not about someone else building businesses. If you read it in full, without taking pieces out and trying to modify them slightly to make for a completely different meaning, then there is no controversy. It is simply the truth. The dogma coming from the cons is based on a lie.

What he said is, that if you are smart, and work hard, that is not why you succeed. He specifically said that lots of people are smart, and work hard, and that the only reason you succeed is that there are roads and bridges out there. Does that mean that the 60% of the new businesses that fail fail because they built somewhere without roads and bridges, or does it mean what he said is indefensible?

Why do you think he made two separate commercials, with two separate explanations of what he said?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's nothing that needs defending. The antecedent is in the sentence(s) before the one you quoted. I'm sorry you're wrong.

We have two choices, either Obama properly matched the pronoun with the antecedant of business, or he improperly matched it the the antecedent of roads and bridges. Your position is that the greatest orator in history doesn't understand basic rules of grammar. Mine is he does.

He used the wrong pronoun, you're correct.

You probably slept through the part of your 5th grade English class that talked about the various rules of using antecedents, and assume that everyone else did also.

Let me explain something to you. The reason we use a pronoun with an antecedent is so that we do not have to say things line "President Lincoln delivered Lincoln's Gettysburg Address in 1863." There are multiple rules which guide the use of antecedents, the least of which is the agreement in number and gender between a pronoun and its antecedent. Another rule is commonly known as the last antecedent rule, you should look it up and educate yourself. I particularly like this particular rule because lawyers are taught to be sticklers about it, and Obama is, supposedly, a lawyer. Basically it says that, unless there is a reason to assume otherwise, pronouns always apply to the last antecedent.

 

[rightwinger]

. 1. In his Roanoke Moment, President Obama said the following:
"If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Your opening quote is a lie.

Kind of blows away the whole thread doesn't it?

Doesn't say anything about roads and bridges