White House officials have offered a boilerplate condemnation, and the matter is settled. http://www.inquisitr.com/261549/gay-activists-flip-off-reagan-portrait-white-house-responds/
cia pedigree i cannot post links, so i will just mention 0bama's background, and ties to the cia, including his grandparents, mother, and step father who have all worked for the cia directly, or a cia front. the State Department’s recent revelation in response to a Freedom of Information Act request that the pre-1965 passport files of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham Soetoro, were destroyed in the 1980s, has re-ignited suspicions that Obama’s mother worked for the CIA under non-official cover (NOC) cover in Indonesia while married to Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, a retired colonel in General Suharto’s CIA-backed ranks. Soetoro and Dunham married in 1965 after meeting at the University of Hawaii. That same year, the CIA-backed Suharto launched an anti-Communist coup that saw leftist President Sukarno eventually ousted from power and up to one million suspected Communists, including many ethnic Chinese Indonesians, massacred by government troops. Obama recently lifted a ban on U.S. military support for the Indonesian Red Beret KOPASSUS special operations forces imposed after the unit committed human rights abuses in East Timor in the late 1990s. The 12-year ban, imposed by the Clinton administration, was maintained by the Bush administration. source: 21stcenturywire
Some DOT signs in Alaska were hacked: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://articles.ktuu.com/2012-07-05/signs_32555718 When you consider the fact that more Americans went on disability last month than got jobs, the sentiment expressed above is understandable: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304935/obama-s-goose-cooked-larry-kudlowGovernment is the problem, not the solution.
The Republican Swindle Remember, Joe, this is substantial according to the conservative swindle: • Congressional Republicans make their first priority wrecking the Obama presidency. • Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney even goes so far as to criticize Obama for not having a jobs plan. • Never mind, of course, that in their zeal to wreck Obama's presidency, Republicans have already rejected his jobs plan. • That the Republicans have been successful at sabotaging the nation's economic recovery therefore means Obama is to blame. • Thus, Madanthonywayne is sympathetic to the hacked DOT signs' message. Perhaps our neighbor really does believe it's a substantial argument. Whether or not it is true, as we see, is entirely irrelevant to him. It's a swindle, and he seems happy enough to take part. I don't understand on what basis you might expect him to admit that he's trying to con people; thus, we can reasonably accept that he really does think he's making substantial argument. And of course it's not partisan, in his view. How in the world could anyone possibly expect him to admit he's willingly participating in a con job? That is, once he acknowledges the truth, he is tacitly, at least, admitting that he's been lying for years. And, well, that ain't gonna happen. Ego defense is a powerful influence; it is likely that, whatever else, he actually believes he's making an honest, substantial, nonpartisan point.
I give our neighbor more credit, I think he is smart enough to know that he is passing on partisan crap. Of course, I could be wrong. He is the guy who joined Rush Limbaugh in his "Operation Chaos", Republican fund raising for Clinton and Republican voting in Democratic Primaries to secure the Democratic POTUS nomination in 2008 for Hillary Clinton. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/07/limbaugh-says-hell-fundra_n_85593.html?
The Accidental Swindler? In that case, you're accusing him of lying. That's a bit of a personal attack, and one that you couldn't prove even if you had his brain in a jar on a table in front of you. Thus, the next option—i.e., sinister or stupid?—is that he's simply that ignorant. This is one of those touchy sorts of accusations that isn't going to do anyone any good. But there is a third option, that he is smart enough to figure these things out, but too deeply buried in his own neuroses to perceive reality. This is ego defense. It's part of human nature. He cannot disprove it without accepting one of the other two options. And, as far as it goes, the simple reality is that he is peddling falsehoods, distortions, and two-bit snake-oil. It isn't so much a matter of proving ego defense, but, rather, figuring out the reason for what is demonstrable, which is that he's taking part in the Republican swindle. Frankly, I find his sort of political game beyond simply unethical; it is morally repugnant. Then again, this is the example he wishes to set; it is his contribution to the definition of a conservative. The only upshot—if we even really want to call it that—is that he cannot complain about generalizations suggesting that conservatives are dishonest, because he is actively demonstrating the point. Certes, we can call him an outlier in that context, but it's the same sort of thing we see from elected and appointed conservative officials: Sen. McConnell, Rep. Boehner, Rep. Cantor, Justice Scalia, and many, many more. Strangely, Mitt Romney is the oddball here, because he seems eternally uncertain just how he wishes to take part. In recent weeks, the former Massachusetts governor has been unable to decide on which lie he wants to tell. When it gets to this scale, there has to be something else going on. I would prefer to believe that conservatives are simply mired in neurotic disruption than to accept that they are actually evil.
The president has come out with another gem: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 'If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-ARENT-responsible-success.html#ixzz20qi6ZrpK
Most often that's true. Walmart and other large chains get tax breaks, other companies get roads built just for them on the taxpayer's expense, to say nothing of all roads in general, and public schools that educate their employees.
Why am I not surprised to see you misreprepsenting the truth again Mad? You and your fellow Republicans and their special interest backers have taken President Obamas' words out of context. This is what President Obama really said; "We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more … There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m 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. 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. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. 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 GI 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.” - President Obama http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...if-youve-got-a-business-you-didnt-build-that/ When you put those words into context, it kind of give a completely different meaning. Doesn't it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You guys are just playing the typical Republican partisan misinformation game.
madanthonywayne Actual quote: Are you too stupid to understand that this is a lie? Or are you repeating a lie that you are aware is a lie? Or are you unaware that the snippet you posted is a lie and too lazy or partisan to look for yourself? In any case you posted a lie. Retract it and apologize or be known to be a liar(redundant, I know, you are Republican, after all)... GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So Republicans, must love Obama for fewer government pay checks, No? Not sure, and too lazy to check, but bet Obama´s brief spike positive was the census takers jobs.
That is part of the irony here. Under the Obama administration public sector spending and jobs have been contracting. In other words, government is getting smaller. One would think that if Republicans were serious, they should be applauding Obama. But that has not happened, and not likely to happen. All of the employment growth in the Obama administration has occurred in the private sector – not bad for a socialist commie. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now contrast that with employment growth in the previous Republican administration where all of the employment growth occurred in the public sector (i.e. government).
You're awfully quick with the insults, Grumpy. What "lie" are you talking about? The words that Anthony quoted Obama as saying are precisely the same words that you quoted him saying in the text that you highlighted. You seem to be agreeing with Anthony that Obama did in fact say those words. The dispute seems to be about whether the preceding words about somebody investing in roads and bridges significantly modify the meaning of the words that Anthony quoted and you highlighted ("If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.") How does building roads and bridges imply that people who seemingly start and build up businesses didn't actually do that? How does it imply that the credit for starting and building up businesses belongs to the government instead? I think that if Obama had had his teleprompter going and the opportunity to speak carefully scripted words, instead of winging it by speaking his own mind, then perhaps he might have toned down his rhetoric a bit. His point isn't totally without merit. Entrepeneurs do function within a broader social context and they may arguably owe some kind of debt to broader society. But Obama's suggestion that entrepeneurs deserve no credit for their own entrepeneurship, and that the credit should instead be re-assigned elsewhere, is simply foolishness.
Yazata You are being deceitful as well. Obama was talking about how NO business in America got where they are on their own. The roads, bridges, police and military as well as a lot of the basic research was paid for by all of us. IOW we enabled those businesses to succeed through our mutual efforts. It's pretty plain that he was saying that successful companies did not build the infrastructure that ALLOWED them to succeed. And equally plain that his words were selectively edited and taken out of context, IE a LIE. And what Obama said, when taken in context, was the truth. But don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting. Carry on(it's really fun shooting down such easy targets). GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A lie oft-effected No, Yazata. Madanthonywayne has been at this for a long time. His reliance on distortion, myth, and appeals to emotion is so heavy that it is impossible to ignore. The problem is that, at some point, it comes down to one being either sinister or stupid. Psychologically speaking, it is preferable to presume one well-intended, which generally appears to leave specific and vital ignorance as the only real option. However, if one considers the basis of evil, there is a lack there, too. Perhaps our neighbor really doesn't understand the implications of what he's doing and advocating. Or perhaps he does not understand the harmful aspect of harm. In the end, one would prefer stupid to sinister. At least then we need not regard our neighbor Madanthonywayne as willfully evil. It is a lie derived from Original Sin. Madnathonywanye, perhaps sub- or un-consciously, presumes people inherently evil, and thus seeks the most sinister interpretations of what one says or does. Indeed, there is no real overlap from one occasion to the next; there is no cumulative effect if each issue is held isolated from all others with no interrelationships. That is, it does not matter how many times one says or demonstrates something that does not conform to the belief; the cumulative effect of one's words or actions is irrelevant, as it does not actually exist within the outlook. In this case— —it would appear you presuppose on the side of the lie. The thing is that if you or I start a business today, or started a business at any point in our lifetimes, the ability to do so depends in no small part on the fact that the society already exists. Nine of my twelve years of education through high school were spent in public schools. My unsuccessful university time was spent at a public institution. But even without those—i.e., if I was wealthy enough to never set foot in a public school—I still traveled on public roads. The employees I hire have used public resources similarly in their development to the point that they are worth employing. The food we eat and the medications we use are supposed to be safe according, and that safety structure is part of the public endeavor. The very money people will spend is defined by the public endeavor. Find me one person who has never received even one such benefit from the state. Never used a public school. Never went to a hospital. Never walked, driven, or rode upon a public road. Never spent a dime of the society's currency. Never used a public utility. Never actually taken part in any aspect of our society. Never received any education from anyone outside the family structure. Never appealed to public decency, or been protected by public law. Show me the business they started. And then convince me that this one person represents everybody. And then you will have proven the lie to be true. Obama spoke of the interconnectedness of all people within a society. Madanthonywayne either chose, or concluded without any hope of finding otherwise, that Obama means something entirely different. Something that makes no sense at all when considered in the context of the human endeavor. Something defined entirely by the myth he lives by. And he has shown this problem repeatedly over the years. Grumpy is not quick with the insults; rather, he is reserved and cautious. It really does seem you're already sold on the lie. "Obama's suggestion that entrepeneurs deserve no credit for their own entrepeneurship," is exactly what Madanthonywayne hopes people will believe as a result of his willful misrepresentation of the president's context. So, yes. Show me that one person, please. And then convince me that he or she is representative of everyone. • • • We should take note of a few things. First, Madanthonywayne's post came at 21.03 PDT last night. The story had already been debunked by then, but, you know, it fits his narrative so who cares about pesky facts, right? But think of this: America's leading small business association has slammed Barack Obama for showing 'an utter lack of understanding' of the country's entrepreneurs when he told them: 'If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.' In a hard-hitting statement to Mail Online, the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) president Dan Danne said: 'What a disappointment to hear President Obama's revealing comments challenging the significance of America's entrepreneurs. Mr Danne added: 'His unfortunate remarks over the weekend show an utter lack of understanding and appreciation for the people who take a huge personal risk and work endless hours to start a business and create jobs.' (Harnden) Absent from our neighbor's post, of course, is Harnden's consideration of what the president actually said. But, perhaps, more importantly, does the name "National Federation of Independent Businesses" sound familiar? It should. They just lost a big case before the Supreme Court called NFIB v. Sebelius, which is more popularly recognized as the "Obamacare" decision. Yesterday, Kent Jones of The Rachel Maddow Show picked this up as part of their running "Infoxifciation" joke. That would be eleven hours before our neighbor decided to post his cheap propaganda. Steve Benen, also of TRMS, gave the issue more serious consideration today: Fox News took the quote, carefully edited out the context, and soon after, Republicans decided they had a new talking point on their hands. Paul Ryan, the right-wing chairman of the House Budget Committee, helped lead the way. A conservative writer ran this item last night. It was Rep. Paul Ryan's wife, Janna, who first saw -- via Twitter -- President Obama's recent comments about American entrepreneurs, that "if you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." And the Wisconsin Republican -- thought to be on Mitt Romney's running-mate short list -- couldn't believe it. He thought someone must "have been putting words in the president's mouth." But Obama said it all. Well, no, actually he didn't. Ryan argued that Obama "slipped" and accidentally mentioned his radical leftist ideology, but that only makes sense if you deliberately feign ignorance and ignore the context. And that's precisely what Ryan, Rush Limbaugh, Fox, and a motley crew of activists are doing to manufacture outrage where none should exist. As Jonathan Bernstein explained, "By 'you didn't build that,' Obama clearly means business-people didn't build 'the unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.'" Perhaps this concept is too sophisticated for the president's critics; perhaps they understand it well but are hoping their hysterics will distract from Mitt Romney's recent troubles. Either way, this is just cheap. There's nothing even controversial about the concept of Americans relying on public institutions and one another for success. If you start a business, you rely on the police to protect it if someone tries to break in; you rely on public schools to provide you with capable employees; you rely on public roads to move goods and services; you rely on the Internet; etc. That's obviously what the president was talking about. If the right disagrees with the observation, fine, let's have the debate. But to pretend Obama said something he didn't by way of selective editing is kind of pathetic. Pathetic is certainly a fine word, but I'm not sure it is an adequate description of Madanthonywayne's willful misrepresentation. The due diligence of reading and considering the very article he offered up for us is apparently beyond his faculty or dignity. Either way, by the time he posted, he was repeating a debunked talking point, and this is a common right-wing tactic. If one simply repeats what has already been debunked without addressing the critique, one is implicitly demanding that the discussion return to square one. This is a dishonest, cowardly, and repugnant approach. We must remember that our neighbor has a very poor view of the average voter. In December, he reminded of Churchill's famous quote that "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". And, indeed, the Winston Churchill Centre does account for that quote, under "Famous Words Churchill Never Coined". Indeed, our neighbor asserted that, "Even the most uninformed trolls here on Sciforums are probably much more up on current events than the average voter." He did clarify, though, explaining, "I am by no means saying that the average voter and/or citizen is stupid, just very poorly informed regarding politics." And here the tactic crystallizes for all to see. He operates on the belief that voters are very poorly informed; he also intends to exploit that belief by willfully pushing misinformation. To wit, he believes the amount of confusion created by conservative distortion proves his point about voters. And there you have the basic elements of his misinformation strategy: Voters are poorly informed; let us willfully misinform voters; if they believe us, it is because they are poorly informed. I would not go so far as to say that his behavior is ineffably horrendous. Rather, decency forbids an accurate description of such moral depravity. And that, too, is a shield he is willing to hide behind. ____________________ Notes: Harnden, Toby. "'And what do you know?': Business leaders hit back at Obama after he says the wealthy AREN'T responsible for their own success". Mail Online. July 16, 2012. DailyMail.co.uk. July 17, 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174160/Obama-says-wealthy-ARENT-responsible-success.html Jones, Kent. "TRMS headline writing challenge: Infoxication, small business edition". The Maddow Blog. July 16, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 17, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...challenge-infoxication-small-business-edition Benen, Steve. "Context is still king". The Maddow Blog. July 17, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 17, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/17/12787527-context-is-still-king The Churchill Centre. "Red Herrings: Famous Words Churchill Never Coined". The Finest Hour. Winter, 2008-09, n.141. WinstonChurchill.org. July 17, 2012. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/images/finesthour/vol.01 no.141.pdf
As is typical of the left, you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or evil. There was no lie, other than your tortured attempt to paper over what Obama said. He clearly said that anyone who starts a business "didn't do that". Yes, we all benefit from living in a society which allows each of us to specialize and find what we can do best rather than each being forced to live as subsistence level farmers or hunter-gatherers. This is obvious and uncontroversial. If this is, as you claim, what Obama actually meant then it is a straw man argument of the first order. But I don't believe it is what he meant. I think it is one of those little slip ups that reveals what President Obama really believes. Barack Obama does not believe in Horatio Alger. He doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. He believes in a government. Not the limited government of our founders, but a government not bound by any quaint notions such as "private property". After all, how can private property exist when everything each of us achieves is ultimately the result of the many benefits we all are lucky enough to have bestowed upon us by government? Here's a nice commentary on this issue: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0718-20120718,0,2313230.column
