Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
I always love it when the liberal spin machine has to pull out the "Un-named Sources" smoke screen to take a shot. I guess when your totally inept Commander in Chief says to business owners that they didn't start their business...someone else did and then furiously has to back pedal to explain what he meant. Making up comments is a pathetic attempt at deflection.tunnelcat wrote:Well, it was bound to happen in a nasty political race. One of Romney's unnamed advisers, finally stooped low in England and used the "Obama doesn't appreciate White Anglo-Saxon Heritage" or in layman's terms, "Black Obama doesn't like white people" card. Romney's "denying" anyone in his camp said that, of course AFTER it's been circulated in the world press.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... erica.html
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... ics/54987/
I'm guessing Obama might have to dig out the "Mormonism is a cult" card to rile the Evangelicals in response, although I don't think even he would stoop that low.
Except Romney knows exactly what it takes to save a failing Olympics. Maybe the Brits should listen to him. I mean even the security company the Brits picked has failed to hire enough people. It would be a bigger insult if Romney kept his yap shut and then the Brits discovered he could of helped.callmeslick wrote:while he's at it, let him try to dance out of insulting his hosts over the Olympics......he is going to beat Bob Dole yet as the most inept campaign ever.
It's funny how everyone with half a brain who listened to Obama's entire paragraph knew exactly what he meant. Too bad Romney's campaign managers don't fall into that category.woodchip wrote:I guess when your totally inept Commander in Chief says to business owners that they didn't start their business...someone else did and then furiously has to back pedal to explain what he meant.
If everyone knew then there was no reason to backpedal.Top Gun wrote:It's funny how everyone with half a brain who listened to Obama's entire paragraph knew exactly what he meant. Too bad Romney's campaign managers don't fall into that category.woodchip wrote:I guess when your totally inept Commander in Chief says to business owners that they didn't start their business...someone else did and then furiously has to back pedal to explain what he meant.
Give me a link to where Romney said that.CobGobbler wrote:Especially considering that Mitt Romney said the identical thing the previous day at a town hall in Ohio. And at the Olympics in 2002.
Not the first time Fox News selectively edited Obama's comments to make him look bad. Romney was getting killed in the press with the tax return crap; they had to think of something to try and turn the tides. Amazing that it works the way it does because looking at the transcript and hearing the entire piece there is no malice in his words.
So what do you think woodchip, when Romney said it was it bad as well then?
Note the "half a brain" qualifier. That removes a decent chunk of our nation by default.woodchip wrote:If everyone knew then there was no reason to backpedal.Top Gun wrote:It's funny how everyone with half a brain who listened to Obama's entire paragraph knew exactly what he meant. Too bad Romney's campaign managers don't fall into that category.woodchip wrote:I guess when your totally inept Commander in Chief says to business owners that they didn't start their business...someone else did and then furiously has to back pedal to explain what he meant.
Someone listens to Fox News propaganda too much. I listened to both versions of Obama's speech, the original and the Fox version. Fox deliberately cut out one little part that made all the difference in the meaning, and Romney ran with it like the lying, pontificating, bloviating ignoramus that he is. Shame on Romney AND Fox News.Top Gun wrote:It's funny how everyone with half a brain who listened to Obama's entire paragraph knew exactly what he meant. Too bad Romney's campaign managers don't fall into that category.woodchip wrote:I guess when your totally inept Commander in Chief says to business owners that they didn't start their business...someone else did and then furiously has to back pedal to explain what he meant.
Well I suspect Obama's actions toward the Brits sat even less well. You do remember one of the first thing our august leader in training pants did was to remove Winston Churchill's bust from the oval office. While most of you want to focus on Romney s security statement, what you conveniently (or deliberately) forgot was Romney also saying one of the first things he'd do is return Winnie's bust back to the oval office. Now it seems that part of his interiew got the White House in a tither as:callmeslick wrote:seems the Brits don't agree
equally obvious, not ONE of my several dozen British friends and acquaintences has ever mentioned it, so the point is well taken.woodchip wrote:Obviously you are not British.
Put it this way, if I were the first Black President of the United States, I'd have a bust of Lincoln put in the Oval Office out of reverence and appreciation. After all, he did free the slaves. That's a pretty big deal in the history of African Americans. I noticed you didn't comment on the tail of the 2 Churchill busts and the fake outrage over just the ONE, that was only loaned to BUSH.Sergeant Thorne wrote:The bust of Abraham Lincoln? Do you really have to ask, TC? It's because of the Obama = Lincoln BS before and after his election. That's just an insult to Lincoln, if you ask me--they're playing on Lincoln's popularity because he is portrayed as a champion against slavery.
Which, I would say, would be commendable. But you're projecting. I don't give many people in politics that much credit when it comes to having sincere motives. I know too much about marketing, too much about politics, and too much about Obama in particular.tunnelcat wrote:Put it this way, if I were the first Black President of the United States, I'd have a bust of Lincoln put in the Oval Office out of reverence and appreciation.
That's because I thought you dealt with it well enough, and I'd never looked into it.tunnelcat wrote:I noticed you didn't comment on the tail of the 2 Churchill busts and the fake outrage over just the ONE, that was only loaned to BUSH.
woodchip wrote:Yeah, lets keep the guy who calls a police officer stupid for doing his job.
woodchip wrote:ah yes, the beer summit...after Obama realized what a ass he had been and was trying to wash the egg off his face.
When exactly did Obama cop to an error? Sharing brews around the table within camerashot of the photogs is vastly different than getting up in front of the same photogs and reporters and admitting that he should have just kept his big mouth shut with the blame thing. Had he told the hysterical media people from the start that what they really needed to do was just calm down, let's all take a step back and find out what the facts in this case were, then I could have had a lot more respect for that position. As it was, this was just one of the first events that told me that we were going to be in for rough slog with the new chief executive.callmeslick wrote: AT least he was man enough to cop to it. It was a sort of nebulous incident that triggered the whole thing, and unless you are a black man, you or I will never truly understand the generations of history that complicates incidents like that one. We can only hope to be understanding of where the Professor and the President's reactions came from.
Actually, it appears that any number of people with more than half a brain still don't manage to see things from your point of view -Top Gun wrote:It's funny how everyone with half a brain who listened to Obama's entire paragraph knew exactly what he meant. Too bad Romney's campaign managers don't fall into that category.woodchip wrote:I guess when your totally inept Commander in Chief says to business owners that they didn't start their business...someone else did and then furiously has to back pedal to explain what he meant.
Frankly, I think this section hits at one part of the heart of the matter. In the Roanoke speech, Obama was at his unscripted, demagoguing, hectoring "best". In front of a friendly crowd, he felt he could say what he really wanted to, and he did. Yeah he can come out later and do scripted ad after scripted ad "clarifying" his remarks. But it wasn't just what he said at Roanoke, it was how he said it. That's what people hear, and that's what people are reacting to.Three weeks later, Obama’s comment is still a big deal.
Although his supporters pooh-pooh the controversy, claiming the statement has been taken out of context and that he was referring only to public infrastructure, the full video isn’t reassuring. Whatever the meaning of “that” was, the president on the whole was clearly trying to take business owners down a peg. He was dissing their accomplishments. As my Bloomberg View colleague Josh Barro has written, “You don’t have to make over $250,000 a year to be annoyed when the president mocks people for taking credit for their achievements.”
only to those that believe like he does.Top Gun wrote:Simple: because what he meant was perfectly clear from the get-go.
You're kidding me, right? You really want to look at these two speeches (see here and Reason's mashup here, and tell me they're the same thing? Not buying it. Not even close.Top Gun wrote:I was a bit incorrect there. That statement from Romney wasn't a few years ago...he said it two weeks ago, immediately after repeating the distortion of Obama's quote in the same speech. You can't make this ★■◆● up.
So Obama tries to build a telling argument out of an utterly mundane point - that we don't live in a vacuum. Yeah, I think we all agree on that. But Romney gets the business owners to stand up and be noted for their work, and Obama gives them a hectoring lecture about why they're not so special.Was Obama saying the owner of a business did not build his business or did not build the aforementioned “unbelievable American system” and “roads and bridges”? Under the principle of charity, I give him the benefit of the doubt, but you can decide for yourself.
A more interesting question is why Obama bothered to state this truism. Everyone knows that a successful business, along with individual initiative, requires things the owner did not create. Besides roads and bridges, a successful business requires other businesses. Without those, where would any firm get its buildings, materials, and machines? And remembering Say’s Law, without other people’s productive efforts, no business would have customers: People can buy only because they first had something to sell (goods or labor services). Demand is supply and vice versa.
Has Obama really run across many people who think they got “there on [their] own” only because they are smarter and harder working than everyone else? I guess there are a few people like that, but I smell a straw man. (Obama’s mocking tone at this point was certainly off-putting and did not help his cause.)
No, only to those who understand how pronouns and antecedents work. Which, granted, was probably a slim minority of Romney's audience.CUDA wrote:only to those that believe like he does.Top Gun wrote:Simple: because what he meant was perfectly clear from the get-go.
