Voldad said he built the roads with his taxes. So you tell me what the argument is. I never said Obama was a genius, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it sounded when the blue team said it last time around. It's dumb. These guys are not smarter than the last 200 years of presidents.
what? my argument is he spent the entire speech telling the rich that they didn't deserve to be rich (going on and on about how there are all those hard working and smart poor people). Pulled out the "you didn't built that" and then immediately followed it up with "you didn't do that on your own" and it's ridiculous to argue the 5% of the speech he was talking about roads somehow was the qualifier for the statement UNLESS you believe he thinks the rich are going around telling people they built the roads on their wn. no one that has that type of private equity record is anything but really really smart. Just like any other profession that requires a mind to be successful (unlikes say sales). If Obama was considered one of the top 5 performing lawyers or law professors of all time I might have been on the "he's a genius" bandwaggon. and I can't say I've really considered most of our past presidents genius level material.
I'm dropping the smart president stuff. Just not fertile ground for meaningful discussion. I feel like we already talked about the "you didn't build that" thing to death. I just don't understand why some of you guys hear the same words and take such a completely different meaning. To me, he is saying that nothing happens in a vacuum and it takes a few breaks of one kind or another to be successful. He is saying there are poor people that work really hard too. Perhaps they weren't born quite as clever, or to a good family, or had some burden that they had to bear of one kind or another. Why is this so awful to say? We're all standing on someone's shoulders, right? I didn't spring forth from the ground fully grown.
let me be clear that I am not arguing he will be a good president. Smart <> good. I agree that's his argument. So why are we to assume that him saying "you didn't build that" is talking about roads and not business owners when the entire speech is about how business owners weren't soley responsible for their success? But where does he say "maybe there weren't quite as clever?" This is not the first speech where obama has implied, if not outright said, that the rich got that way through luck or having a silver spoon. It's part of his entire class warfare argument. If the rich deserve it (or mostly deserve it), and the poor are poor because of their own actions, than that cuts through his entire wealth redistribution argument. He's not just saying that "some people have advantages" he's flat out saying that advantages are all that matters. Now if obama had started this speech talking about how he went to private school because someone helped him out, got his college and law degree paid for by private institutions, and because someone helped him out that is why he is where he is today than I wouldn't find this so objectionable. Instead obama's argument seems to be that every rich person got that way because of daddy or govt handouts while he completely ignores his own entire privileged, but poor, upbringing.
Perhaps I interpreted it differently than you because I am not as diametrically opposed to Obama in general. So through the lense of my opinions and experience, I see his comments as being as I described. Perhaps if one is of the persuasion that he is a socialist boogieman, his comments fall into that expectation. I don't know. It is just perplexing to me, as the whole speech appeared to be a less than eloquent stump speech of little consequence.
He definitely didn't say that. In fact, he pretty strongly suggested smarts aren't as much of a factor as the rich like to think.
Is it really that perplexing that someone in favor of entitlement programs might suggest that the haves didn't really earn their wealth solely of their own merits and the have-nots deserve help because their poverty is not a consequence of their own actions?
I do know some people who give their own smarts too much credit in their journey to success. I feel like that is exactly what is said about Obama's life all the time.
So what was the point of the whole speech? The only way your argument flies is if you think obama goes around giving speeches about random topics for no reason.
Questioning why someone got into harvard law without making the honor roll once as an undergrad is not exactly the same as asking if someone started a company and made millions because they were lucky.
The point was to address the rhetoric of the Rich paying too much in taxes (i.e., more than their fair share). he is saying they have gained the most from living and enjoying the merits of this country. They are benefiting the most from various government works. They're part of a larger system.
He just started a company out of the blue, huh? How did he pay for school? What was his background growing up? He surely wasn't raised on a beat farm in South Dakota, right? I mean, he grew up in and around success.
A lot of self made rich people don't have college educations. A lot that do worked their way through school. An awful lot did not grow up and around success.
Keys to sucess: * Don't drop out of high school * Don't get involved with drugs * Don't get yourself or someone else pregnant with a child you cannot afford * Get a job, work hard, get a better job. repeat process I would say that you are probabaly right. He grew up in and around success
If you're defending Obama's "you didn't build that" comment and slamming Romney for the "47%" comment, whatever credibility you had at analyzing this election went flying out the window. They both had meanings behind them that were accurate but were poorly worded. Romney admitted he was wrong to stop the constant media blitz about it. Quit being so blatantly biased, IP.
Mine has went up $172 in two years, if it had gone up by these amounts(%) in the past decade it would now cost me around $5000 a month.
Blow me, LawVol. If you're going to criticize my criticisms without even reading them, just blow me. I agree they were both poorly worded. I've said as much with Obama, and my criticism of Romney (if you'd bothered to actually read it) was mostly about the numbers encompassing that 47 %. Again, please blow me.
Your criticism is bullshit as is your political analysis that's portrayed by you to be this unbiased, objective approach. It's not, and its no different than anyone else you criticize for doing so.
