I think it is pretty clear what Obama meant. Any body who runs a business knows
that Gov. is out there daily trying to shut you down.
Yes, fire Karl Rove.
The biggest myth I see coming from GOP rhetoric in recent years is that
government is evil.Anyone who has studied business knows that
government has always had a major hand in entrepreneurship and business
development. From public education to research and development to the roads,
bridges, and Internet connections, government has built the foundation of
business and economic prosperity. Indeed, had the government NOT built the
Internet and had Al Gore NOT sponsored legislation in 1992 allowing businesses
to operate on the Internet, you'd not have Google, Facebook, Amazon, and
eBay today.The GOP may be the political party for business, but it
does a disservice to its core constituents by promoting the idea that government
is evil. Yes, government has waste, but to literally proclaim that ALL
government regulation and investment in future technology and projects are
wasteful simply denies what made America the greatest nation on earth.
Also, what is this newpaper's position about releasing tax returns. That
would be an important opinion.
Context gets removed so often when statements are repeated that I seldom believe
the message anymore.
“When we invested in the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gate Bridge, or the
Internet, sending a man to the moon — all those things benefited
everybody. And so that’s the vision that I want to carry forward.”-
President Obama from the same speech“You will never see
another federal dam.” - Deanna Archuleta, Deputy Assistant to the
Secretary of the Interior in a speech to an environmentalist group in Nevada I don't think this man is truly interested in
"infrastructure". After half a trillion spent on "shovel-ready"
projects exactly what do we have to show for it? Let's also consider
how much business succeeds in America in spite of things someone else built e.g.
- a convoluted mess of a tax code, regulations for days etc etc
Great editorial, and very balanced. But from some of the posts already appearing
here, you can tell it isn't sinking in with a lot of people. The sooner
that each of us figures out that our own preferred political party lies
compulsively to win public favor and elections, the sooner we can demand that
this obnoxious cherry-picking of quotes stop.
It is not surprising that "Professor Obama", who taught a class at the
University of Chicago on the Saul Alinsky Method, employs the Saul Alinsky
method. This tactic says "repeat a lie frequently enough, and be out with
it first, and the majority of the people will believe you"
Great editorial that is much needed.@red state prideOnly about
40 billion of it was allocated for infrastructure. The Dems wanted 80 billion
but Republicans forced cuts or else they'd just filibuster it (at the tiem
there were 41 Republicans).
BrentBot,Did you miss the part of the editorial where they showed
Republicans lying about Obama?Here's a few quick examples of
conservative political lies repeated often to sway public opinion:Obama's birth certificate (surprise! he's American!)Suggesting
Obama is a Muslim (He just goes to a Christian church to throw everyone off)Accusing Obama of being a Communist (please read about what Communism actually
is)Government takeover of healthcareGovernment getting between you
and your doctorObama will take your guns (I'll bet you still have
them)Obama hates AmericaObama is waging class warfareObama
hates success (he's a self-made millionaire)Karl Rove's
political tacticsMichelle Bachmann's frequent erroneous
accusationsJust about anything Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh saySwift Boat Veteran campaign in 2004 (lying helped turn an election in that
one)Please, feel free to make a similar list of liberal political
lies. They're out there. Between the two of us we can probably show just
how ruined our political dialogue is in America.
If you read the entire context around the quote in question it is very obvious
that Obama's critics are right: he believes that business owners can take
little to no credit for any of their success. Apparently he forgets that
business owners pay taxes and therefore did build "that". To
Baron Scarpia: anyone who has studied history and economics has found that
business (and the economy) has done best when government gets out of the way.
You're right that government has had a major hand in business for a long
time. That hand has been mostly destructive and counter productive. If you ever
get a chance, read "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman and you'll
see just how much better life would be if government stayed out of the way more.
Misrepresentation. Lies. Money. Power. More Power.Isn't
that what politics is all about?The big question is how can that be
The editorial writers are putting words in Obama's mouth. You logic just
doesn't add up. Inserting words into his qoute to support your position is
total supposition and reminds me of the MSNBC freaks and their rhetorical
stretches and lies. Yes the government has its place and does some good things
in the past and will again in the future, the problem is that Obama believes
that the government is the be all and end all. Your editorial sounds like the
late Rodney King when he said, "can't we all just get along?". I'm going to use my own rhetorical stretch when I quote Revelations
3:16-"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will
spue thee out of my mouth." The editorial writers need to quit trying
to hog the middle of the road.
This type of rhetoric is never going to end. The American people need to do
their own homework and come to their own conclusions. For me, it's mostly
about the economy. President O'bama may have inherited a crisis but his
policies have only made it worse. I started with a small company in 2008 that
had 70 employees. We are down to 25 with more cuts coming. Do I believe Romney
can turn it around? Don't know. But I do know O'bama can't.
America has surely seen better days regarding growth and surplus. How about we
go back to those policies!
Agree. Good points.Re:BrentbotAhh come'on.One of
the first ads Romney aired was a cut and paste job.The ad, which
Romey played during the primaries last year, Obama is heard saying "if we
keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose."But when Mr.
Obama made that statement, he was actually quoting an aide to John McCain, his
2008 rival for the presidency. "Senator McCain's campaign
actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we're
going to lose," Mr. Obama said.In an email to Politico, the
Romney camp said it used the out-of-context quote "intentionally." Romney also wrote a book falsely accusing Obama of apologizing for
America, when it could be easily said Obama touted America's strengths.It's too bad we voters allow this crap and just feed into what has
become a colossal waste of money called a presidential campaign.
Very poor comparison DNews in one case MSNBC tried and did misrepresent the
intent of the speaker. In the case of Mr. Obama his intent was to show that
private enterprise builders were not "private" or "independent",
but were the benefactors of government supported others. Mr. Limbaugh, Mr.
Romney and others were correct in their description of the intent and the
context your article provides clearly shows this. Here is the question from
where did the revenues come to build the roads, the"Hoover Dams",
bridges, the support for broad based public education? How would this President
answer this question, how would the editorial writer answer the question, how
would the founder of Papa John's or Mitt Romney answer the question. And,
how you and I answer this question and which answerers are in the majority come
November will determine whether liberty prevails or tyranny triumphs and ends
for now and perhaps the future the American "myth" on which the dreams
of the modern world were built and sustained.
If you've got a business, you didn't build that [i.e the roads,
bridges, and unbelievable American system.] Somebody else made that
happen."ORIf you've got a business, you
didn't build that [i.e your small business.] Somebody else made that
happen."I think BO is correct, he did not become a millionaire
community organizer on his own, someone else made that happen.
In other words, it would be very nice if political advertising stopped being
political advertising.I would love it if the focus on both sides was on
policy. That isn't the case, and never has been, at least since the days
when Jefferson was being called an atheist who had children by one of his
slaves, and Adams was accused of high treason for supporting the Jay treaty.
Politics is rough business. The best approach is to have some humor about
it, laugh at the human folly displayed on all sides, and then carefully sort out
where they stand on policy.
re: one old man 9:02 a.m. July 21, 2012Confucius once said, "The
journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." The 1st
two steps IMO in the journey are; 1) Stop voting for Ivy Leaguers, & 2) End
From the same speech: "its central idea
is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if
you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try.
That you can find a job that supports a family and find a home you can make your
own; that you won’t go bankrupt when you get sick. That maybe you
can take a little vacation with your family once in a while..to spend with those
you love...That your kids can get a great education, and if they’re
willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have
even imagined achieving. And then you can maybe retire with some dignity
and some respect, and be part of a community and give something back. That’s the idea of America. It doesn’t matter what you
look like, where you come from. It doesn’t matter whatyour
last name is. You can live out the American Dream. That’s what
binds us all together."
If preserving your ideology matters more to you than thinking hard about
real-world, objective, testable evidence, then this editorial isn't going
to make a dent in your thinking.If you're given a choice
between a comforting lie that supports your belief, and a painful truth that
reveals your belief to be false, which do you choose?If there were a
way to rigorously test your beliefs to find out if they were true or false,
would you? Would you make the effort to see if what you think is true really
is?Or would you reject the objective tests in order to preserve your
Big thumbs up to the Deseret News editorial board for being willing to call out
the Republicans on this.If you listen to the entire speech, compare
it to other speeches he's given on the same topic, and compare it to what
he's written in his books, it is indisputable that Obama's point was
that successful entrepreneurs couldn't be successful without the help of
the society and the government. Romney doesn't dispute Obama's actual
point. In fact, he's been hijacking it this last week, juxtaposing the
reasonableness of the position that Obama has been saying all along with the way
the right-wing has been painting Obama this week.The context of this
is Obama's belief that the government needs more tax revenue, and that it
is fair and necessary for the people who have benefited the most from our
society to pay a little bit more in taxes. If Romney disagrees with
Obama's actual point about the government needing more revenue and who
ought to pony up, then he should specifically say what he'd do to balance
Fair enough. Claims of being "self-made" and "I put myself through
college," etc. are incredibly inaccurate and the height of ingratitude.
The pronoun "that" is singular. Therefore when the president used the
word "that" its antecedent is the person's business that he built
(singular). If, as you said, the president's antecedent had been "the
roads, bridges, and unbelievable American system" then the pronoun word
should have been "those." So, unless Obama doesn't know the
difference between "that" and "those" Romney is perfectly right
in criticizing what Pres. Obama said. And my high school English teacher would
be so proud of me!
The problem with is that truth and reality are mostly pretty boring. They make
for lousy TV/video and worse soundbites.Lying and misrepresentation
by contrast are an endless supply of gaffes and stupidities that play well on TV
or YouTube and make for awesome bumper stickers as well.I wonder
which one the candidates will go with?
Why are we viewing MSNBC and the Romney campaign as equivalents? One is part of
a profit making organization beholden to its stockholders. The other is run
directly by the candidate and his staff. They are not the same thing.
Let's not play games here...Mitt Romney is now beholden to more
people than we can count. Must we list them all? Just wait and see what
will occur, what he must do, and to whom he must cater to should he become
President.I think a certain Supreme Court decision should explain this to
@atl134 .. in inflation adjusted dollars the Golden Gate Bridge cost 530 million
dollars. So if we spent 40 billion then according to my calculations we could
have built 80 bridges equivalent to the Golden Gate Bridge. How many did we
build? Zero point zero. I don't know if we even built a bridge across a
ditch. In fact, the only thing I know of that was "built" was about half
a million signs saying "this project brought to you by the American
Reinvestment Act" or whatever those silly orange signs said. @Eric
Samuelson- don't listen to the rhetoric- look at the policy and as I
pointed out before- the policy doesn't involve any investment in
infrastructure. The policy is about investing in dependency.
re:RedstateprideChaffetz (R-UT) Requested $95 Million In Stimulus
Money. All of Utah’s Republicans in Congress voted against the Stimulus
and all of them then used congressional stationary to nab stimulus cash for the
state. Sen. Hatch, Reps. Bishop and Chaffetz sent the Interior Department a
letter on behalf of the Provo River Water Users Association seeking $95 million
in funds. Eric Cantor (R-VA) Held A Job Fair Where Nearly Half The
30 Organizations Received Stimulus Funds; Cantor Also Supported Using Stimulus
Funds To Build A Washington To Richmond Rail. Rep. Cathy Rodgers
(R-WA) Took Credit For $35 Million In Stimulus Highway FundsRep.
Jack Kingston (R-GA) Issued Pres Releases Bragging About Bringing Stimulus Jobs
To His DistrictRep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) Claimed Credit For
Stimulus Grants In His District.Rep. Steve King (R-IA) Claimed
Credit For Highway Stimulus Funds He Voted Against.Rep. Dan Lungren
(R-CA) Praised $127.5 million in Stimulus Funds to Sacramento As a Solution To
“Energy, Environmental and National Security Issues.”Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) Hands Out Giant Stimulus Check In Georgia. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) Praised Stimulus Funding For Local Courthouse.
Both sides, unfortunately, do this. Politics is a dirty game played for high
stakes. From as far back as Lee Atwater, and later Karl Rove, the Republicans
have becomes masters at this technique of character assassination and deceit.
So if the Democrats are catching up, then who is really to blame for the mess
our political landscape has become?Romney and his surrogates call
Obama "unAmerican" and "foreign"; Obama calls Romney a liar and
a cheat. So what? One side hopes the other side will collapse while the
American public just gets more frustrated. However, it is wise to remember to
the winner goes the spoils. In this case, power and money until the next
election cycle.If Romney can't deliver on his promises, will he
be held to the same standard and subject to equal vilification as our current
President? Or will Republican strategists come up with another lame excuse like
they did to cover for the Bush II administrations failings.
A newspaper that puts both sides' quotes into context! Very impressive.
And all too rare. Well done.
Re: "It's pretty clear in the broader context that's the
president's not claiming to have built Papa John's Pizza."It's also pretty clear that the President believes that people only
succeed in life because of government redistribution of wealth.Whether you're willing to give him the more charitable interpretation of
his inarguably ambiguous statement, or not, the liberal talking point he was
trying to make is that successful people -- who have already paid their fair
share, and more, of the taxes that bought the roads and bridges and teachers he
cites -- are now in debt to the government for even MORE of their hard-earned
success, to finance Democrats' deranged vote-buying scams.Either context is un-American. Both are scary.
Nice sentiment, but Obama's speech was poorly written, and the delivery was
poor. It was easy to take it out of context. Besides, he was trying to justify
a tax increase, which is something ill-advised when running for re-election.
The last time a presidential candidate said that we would raise taxes when
running only won his home state and DC. Not a well-advised speech at all.Yes, not a high percentage of people earn above 250,000 per year. But
he who has the gold makes the rules. Something we all have to live with.
"Both sides do this"... that is true.But only one of the
candidates is an LDS member, an ex-bishop and an ex-stake president. I
don't recall ever hearing anything at church saying it's okay to
suspend your morals if others around you suspend theirs. But that seems to be
the argument most are making here when they point out the Democratic party
taking things out of context, etc.I, for one, think Mitt has shown
his true colors and I am ashamed of him.
It is a sad day indeed when the LDS-owned newspaper has to print an editorial
calling for both candidates to "Stop Misrepresenting Positions" when one
of those candidates is an LDS member!