Bigfatbillsfan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 This may have already come up in 3rd's thread. But I'm not going to take the time to go through the entire thread to see if it was posted. Why is Romney running ads attacking Obama for his views when he's seems to have the same views? I don't totally agree with Obama on this. But really Mitt? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSWm2qZ8Oc&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The subtext of his comments isn't that the athletes don't deserve their hard-won medals and that he and his Olympic committee have the right to keep them in their trophy case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 You don't want to bother reading through the thread that's already dedicated to Mitt Romney and the Olympics. So you think you're different from everyone else (well, besides Dave in Norf--k who created FOUR threads in two days about Mitt Romney being rich) and just start a new one. *. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 This may have already come up in 3rd's thread. But I'm not going to take the time to go through the entire thread to see if it was posted. Why is Romney running ads attacking Obama for his views when he's seems to have the same views? I don't totally agree with Obama on this. But really Mitt? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSWm2qZ8Oc&feature=related Be honest. Are you really not able to spot the obvious difference between the two or are you just banking on a handful of us being too stupid to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Be honest. Are you really not able to spot the obvious difference between the two or are you just banking on a handful of us being too stupid to do so? I guess not. Why don't you explain it to me. The subtext of his comments isn't that the athletes don't deserve their hard-won medals and that he and his Olympic committee have the right to keep them in their trophy case. If Obama was trying to take away your business you might have an analogy there. You don't want to bother reading through the thread that's already dedicated to Mitt Romney and the Olympics. So you think you're different from everyone else (well, besides Dave in Norf--k who created FOUR threads in two days about Mitt Romney being rich) and just start a new one. *. Sorry, I have this thing call a life and don't want to read an 18 page thread. I know this is hard for you guys to understand since PPP seems to be what your life is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I guess not. Why don't you explain it to me. Mitt was telling athletes that they should appreciate their families, friends, and communities (community =/= government) that helped them along the way so let's take a moment to recognize them. Obama was telling entrepreneurs that they don't deserve the fruits of their success because they couldn't have done it without government so they better not complain when we spread that wealth around. That's just the difference in the substance of the words. There's also the difference in tone; Mitt's was very respectful, Obama's was snarky & condescending. Anyone who sees these two statements as similar is trying really really hard to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted July 30, 2012 Author Share Posted July 30, 2012 Mitt was telling athletes that they should appreciate their families, friends, and communities (community =/= government) that helped them along the way so let's take a moment to recognize them. Obama was telling entrepreneurs that they don't deserve the fruits of their success because they couldn't have done it without government so they better not complain when we spread that wealth around. That's just the difference in the substance of the words. There's also the difference in tone; Mitt's was very respectful, Obama's was snarky & condescending. Anyone who sees these two statements as similar is trying really really hard to do so. One of the better explanations as to why they are different. However, I don't think Obama was telling people they don't deserve the fruits of their success. His point, just like Romney's, was that they didn't get there solely on their own. Sure Obama came off as a snooty douche when he said it but there's a good reason for that. He happens to be a snooty douche bag. Both he and Mitt are right. When we truly thrive it's because someone took the time to invest in us. That doesn't mean that if your business is successful you didn't work hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) If a fat kid says, "mmmm I like icecream" , Immediately I know I'm thinking to myself "You're fat because you eat so much damn icrecream" But if a skinny kid says "mmmm I like icecream" I think to myself "Damn I wish I had his metabolism" Edited July 30, 2012 by WorldTraveller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I want to see Obama's remarks as related to the right's interpretation that "the government is responsible for business success" but I've not been able to. This is your average election cycle overreaching hype. Obama makes the case that companies that take advantage of government should have to pay the government for that advantage--that seems to be his only point. I keep trying to see more but it's not there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) I want to see Obama's remarks as related to the right's interpretation that "the government is responsible for business success" but I've not been able to. This is your average election cycle overreaching hype. Obama makes the case that companies that take advantage of government should have to pay the government for that advantage--that seems to be his only point. I keep trying to see more but it's not there. okay, Bill O'Reilly. Sure, let's ignore Obama's past statements, the fact that he was parroting that crazy lady who was openly making that point, & suspend disbelief so we can be "Super Centrist: the most reasonable man in the room". Edit: After regrading your statement I agree, as most here have, that although proper interpretation of the plain wording would suggest business owners didn't build their business it does seem he (erroneously) meant they didn't contribute to the building & maintenance of the roads. But make no mistake, he was absolutely crediting government with more credit than it is due in much the same way an unskilled and easily replaceable line-cook might grossly overvalue his contribution to a restaurant. One of the better explanations as to why they are different. However, I don't think Obama was telling people they don't deserve the fruits of their success. His point, just like Romney's, was that they didn't get there solely on their own. Sure Obama came off as a snooty douche when he said it but there's a good reason for that. He happens to be a snooty douche bag. Both he and Mitt are right. When we truly thrive it's because someone took the time to invest in us. That doesn't mean that if your business is successful you didn't work hard. I understand wanting to think your guy's not a Marxist POS but he said what he said. If you're trying to say we're all in this together you would never communicate it that way. And what would be the ultimate point? If you listen to it, in context, you can't honestly escape the reality that his point is that these greedy, self-congratulatory mother!@#$ers need to stop hoarding all the money and need to start paying their "fair share" instead of getting a free ride on the backs of the rest of us. There is no other logical outgrowth of his statement; especially when framed in the context I've explained previously. Edited July 30, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 As I've said before, it was a defining moment of the campaign. Obama helped crystalize the stark contrast of this election, the more you listen to his comments, the worse it is. In context, he's telling us, that it's not just a matter of hard work or intelligence, but an equal collective effort, and without government, you wouldn't have the success you do. And since government has contributed to your success, it is your duty as a successful business person to pay more in taxes. Finally we got a true substantive moment, and as a result of it, it's gonna get played over and over and over all the way till the elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 It's not even close. Romney was saying the people who helped the Olympians deserve thanks; not money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I want to see Obama's remarks as related to the right's interpretation that "the government is responsible for business success" but I've not been able to. This is your average election cycle overreaching hype. Obama makes the case that companies that take advantage of government should have to pay the government for that advantage--that seems to be his only point. I keep trying to see more but it's not there. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/147667-mr-businessman-you-didnt-build-your-business/page__view__findpost__p__2508780 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 His point, just like Romney's, was that they didn't get there solely on their own. . And............?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I guess not. Why don't you explain it to me. Romney credits the opportunity to everyone. Obama credits the outcome to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) okay, Bill O'Reilly. Sure, let's ignore Obama's past statements, the fact that he was parroting that crazy lady who was openly making that point, & suspend disbelief so we can be "Super Centrist: the most reasonable man in the room". Edit: After regrading your statement I agree, as most here have, that although proper interpretation of the plain wording would suggest business owners didn't build their business it does seem he (erroneously) meant they didn't contribute to the building & maintenance of the roads. But make no mistake, he was absolutely crediting government with more credit than it is due in much the same way an unskilled and easily replaceable line-cook might grossly overvalue his contribution to a restaurant. Funny. I watched it in the first media cycle and didn't see it as bad as the hype. I just rewatched it and found it much, much, much more offensive. I wonder if I didn't see the whole clip the first time. In the long clip I just watched, he begins by talking about how hard work only gets you so far. BTW, I have no doubt he's basically a socialist...just thought that the context originally was about paying taxes for using government resources. On rewatching it, I was wrong. God I hope he loses. Edited July 30, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 On rewatching it, I was wrong. You're such a !@#$ing Wednesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 You're such a !@#$ing Wednesday. Wait... it's Monday today, right? Or did I sleep through Tuesday again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) If Obama was trying to take away your business you might have an analogy there. No. He only wants 40% of it. Romney credits the opportunity to everyone. Obama credits the outcome to everyone. And Romney deftly omitted, "You must think it's because you're so talented, or you've so worked hard." Then, yelling at the top of his lungs, "Well, let me tell you there are a LOT of talented hard-working athletes out there!" Edited July 30, 2012 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 You're such a !@#$ing Wednesday. Wed. is Hump Day. So JA is a humper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts