Here's Romney making the identical point Obama made:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z-z-U57BaSc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=z-z-U57BaSc
good enough to get in the 1979 Who's Who in American High School Students.
Probably because I could properly evaluate what something says instead of what I need it to say.
Hahahahahaha, that's the funniest possibly unironic Internet brag I've ever seen.
The Who's Who things are a meaningless sales pitch/scam, they include anyone they think will be willing to buy a copy.
PokerGuy said:
Sure, if you ignore the sentence before it that makes clear he's referring to the bridges and roads as the things you didn't build.
"When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative" Obama's words, case closed, he must mean exclusively that so clearly he's saying that society plays absolutely no role and it's 100% all your own efforts that lead to success.
Notice how you had to hack up his actual sentence to try and make your foolish comparison? What he actually said was "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."
I didn't hack up a sentence or insert anything in an attempt to smear. His statement speaks for itself.
Either that, or dishonest. As I said.
I challenge anyone to actually watch the video of the speech. Listen to the intonation of the words and watch Obama's body language. It is ENTIRELY obvious that when he said "you didn't build that", the "that" refers to the infrastructure in the preceding sentences.
Here's the video. It's at about 45 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
No, it's only "entirely obvious" if you're one of his adoring throng. For anyone else, it's entirely obvious that it's a slap in the face to all who work hard to accomplish something and build a business.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,813
- 10,489
- 147
If that's true, then you qualified for the National Merit Scholarship program.
Did you?
If you didn't, your recollection of how highly you scored is . . . inaccurate.
I know all this because I was a National Merit Scholar.
Dude, seriously?
That was a commercial scam. You're embarrassing yourself here.Probably because I could properly evaluate what something says instead of what I need it to say.
So, what happened?
The irony here is overwhelming. You couldn't properly evaluate what Obama said exactly because of what you needed it to say.
I love the liberals / left defending Obama here. more mental gymnastics are being done then at the Olympics.
The best part is, throughout this thread they accuse the right of doing what they really are. And then they have the nerve to call the right some version of 'idiot'.
The best part is, throughout this thread they accuse the right of doing what they really are. And then they have the nerve to call the right some version of 'idiot'.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
I did qualify for a full scholarship, but the packet was sent to my principal where it languished on his desk until after registration for the last SAT test for the year had expired. To qualify I had only to score in the top 1% in the SAT. However, I had taken the ACT instead (I took both as a junior) because Tennessee colleges required the ACT. By the time the principal "found" the packet he had been sent and called a meeting for us late in my senior year, my only choices were to stay out a year to take the SAT or pay for college. He promised to find me an alternative scholarship, but that never happened - I only had maybe a month of high school left at that point - and even though my father then owned only a quarter of the auto parts store, for financial aid purposes the entire value counted as a family asset. So I paid for college with a combination of my parents' aid and working.If that's true, then you qualified for the National Merit Scholarship program.
Did you?
If you didn't, your recollection of how highly you scored is . . . inaccurate.
I know all this because I was a National Merit Scholar.
Dude, seriously?
So, what happened?
The irony here is overwhelming. You couldn't properly evaluate what Obama said exactly because of what you needed it to say.
I don't disagree that "Who's who" is somewhat of a scam - it's certainly nothing I ever listed on a resume. However, it is documentation to refute your claim. You have my full name, and the year; you can easily verify my claim should you have the balls to do so. It's Rhea County High School, Evensville, TN if you need that. And while many people agree that "Who's who" is somewhat of a scam, I don't believe anyone has accused them of making up what they list. (I believe that is a level of e-penis proof not normally presented, no?) Had I made the list for being a community organizer or some such, I can see it being a joke, but while I'd never mistake a test score for an actual accomplishment, it is what it is, a specific refutation of your charge.
As to "what I need it to say", I have no need for it to say anything. I have absolutely no problem backing Obama when I think he's in the right, as I have on this board on Libya, the current polio vaccine kerfuffle, even "Fast and furious" until he proved me wrong beyond doubt on that issue. I believe in honesty and giving the Devil his due. However, he said what he said. He may have intended to say what you assert, but he said what I said he said. I did after all quote that whole section of his speech, so that each can make his own determination.
Perhaps you could point to all the threads where you've backed the Pubbies against Obama and the Dems just to show me what true independent thought looks like?
Wow, what a well thought out argument.
I've posted all the well thought out arguments already. You simply deny everything and make utterly nonsensical comments such as insisting that a single sentence plucked out of a paragraph is "fully in context".
When someone reveals themselves to be stupid at that level, there's really nothing left to do but point it out.
You have? Must have been some other thread, your posts here were just drivel.
I agree, that's why I point it out when you post.
Well, yes, I can call you stupid and you can call me stupid.
The difference is: I don't pluck one sentence out of a paragraph and then say that it is "fully in context".
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,813
- 10,489
- 147
Dude, whatever scholarship you think you qualified for, it wasn't a National Merit Scholarship. Merely scoring in the top 1% of the PSAT doesn't get you one.
It is abundantly clear you know little to nothing about the National Merit Scholarship selection process.
About 50.000 students each year qualify to compete to become a Semi-Finalist by dint of their PSAT scores, as you apparently did. This does not qualify any of them for a scholarship. It just qualifies them to compete for one.
Of these, only about 16,000 make it to the semi-finals.
In the end, only about 8,000 students nationwide qualify for Merit Scholarship awards. You weren't one of them. They're only a couple of thousand bucks, not the full scholarship you claimed you qualified for even though you never even got as far as the finals, anyway. There are some additional corporate scholarships and such, from big corporations. I sincerely doubt your Dad's body shop was a sponsor. In any even, not even most of these scarce college, corporate and special regional scholarships are full boat anyway.
I know all this because I earned one. You didn't. Get over it.
Please stop bullshittng us now, will you? Most of all, stop bs'ing yourself.
Wow, if that really happened, it sucks. Doesn't mean you would have earned even the couple thousand dollar award, let alone the mythical full scholarship you claim, though. Time to let that fish story go, man.
That smells kinda' fishy, too. It appears your Dad may have told you a tall tale.
AGAIN with the woeful lack of basic reading comprehension!!!
Your "documentation" that you qualified for a full boat National Merit Scholarhsip was that you were included n Who's Who. That's just lame!
That BS commercial come-on you recieved from Who's Who doesn't mean or prove much of anything except that they wanted your money.
They sent those out to everyone they possibly could in order to get them to buy their book . . .including, apparently, you. But it proves nothing!
No one has, that's not the point. The point, which is amply documented, is that WW was a scam designed to prey on the naive, the weak-minded, and the gullible. It's not documented proof of anything, let alone proof that you got a National Merit Scholarship.
Read the above quotes. They threw in everyone they could. This just happened to include you.
If inclusion in WW is your ideal of robust e-penis proof, then from here on in I shall refer to you as Tiny.
No, no it's not a specific refutation of any charge I made. That you think it is really is revealing of your actual, demonstrated level of intellect and understanding. D:
It was a joke. One you still don't want to get.
Your entire premise is predicated on believing in the validity of false equivalency, an easily disproven concept.
Beyond the link I provided, I'd attempt to explain here what that is and why it pertains, but at this point, I'm convinced that you either wouldn't understand or would argue in response as though you didn't.
Oh, hell, I'll throw this in anyway. It illustrates the underlying logical fallacy of your idea that "true independent thought" requres I accept and endorse some current GOP positions. It does not.
I'm a registered independent. I've voted for Republicans in my life. I hope to be able to do so again, but there is little in today's radical-right-hijacked GOP that I can support.
My not supporting most, if any, current GOP positions prove not one thing about any "independent thought" I may possess. I understand that for you to grasp this truth would require some measure of honesty and intellect.
Throuhout this particular thread, at least, you haven't exhibited all that much of ether.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Wow, you are spectacularly bad at reading comprehension for someone who supposedly earned a National Merit Scholarship. I never claimed to have proof that I earned a National Merit Scholarship because I was included in Who's Who; I offered that as a way to refute your accusation that I flubbed my SAT verbals. My PSAT scores were not in any way through the Who's Who organization; those were returned through the school. They were documented by Who's Who. The scholarship information packet was sent later; I'm not sure how much later, as it was almost a year after I received my PSAT grades that it was brought to my attention. I honestly don't remember the name of the scholarship, but the letter was only a couple pages and the language was crystal clear: By dint of my PSAT grades, I qualified for a full scholarship - 100% of tuition, fees and books at any state university, even those in Tennessee that used the ACT for admissions - provided that I scored within the top 1% on the SAT. I didn't have to make the top 1/2% again, and there was nothing in the letter about any competition. That letter is as much as I know about the process because, as I said, the deadline for signing up for the SAT had already passed when we were called in for the meeting. I won't swear there wasn't something in the packet - there was a LOT of stuff I didn't read, since the date had passed - but the letter was crystal clear that if I was in the top 1% in the SAT, I had a full scholarship.Dude, whatever scholarship you think you qualified for, it wasn't a National Merit Scholarship. Merely scoring in the top 1% of the PSAT doesn't get you one.
It is abundantly clear you know little to nothing about the National Merit Scholarship selection process.
About 50.000 students each year qualify to compete to become a Semi-Finalist by dint of their PSAT scores, as you apparently did. This does not qualify any of them for a scholarship. It just qualifies them to compete for one.
Of these, only about 16,000 make it to the semi-finals.
In the end, only about 8,000 students nationwide qualify for Merit Scholarship awards. You weren't one of them. They're only a couple of thousand bucks, not the full scholarship you claimed you qualified for even though you never even got as far as the finals, anyway. There are some additional corporate scholarships and such, from big corporations. I sincerely doubt your Dad's body shop was a sponsor. In any even, not even most of these scarce college, corporate and special regional scholarships are full boat anyway.
I know all this because I earned one. You didn't. Get over it.
Please stop bullshittng us now, will you? Most of all, stop bs'ing yourself.
Wow, if that really happened, it sucks. Doesn't mean you would have earned even the couple thousand dollar award, let alone the mythical full scholarship you claim, though. Time to let that fish story go, man.
That smells kinda' fishy, too. It appears your Dad may have told you a tall tale.
AGAIN with the woeful lack of basic reading comprehension!!!
Your "documentation" that you qualified for a full boat National Merit Scholarhsip was that you were included n Who's Who. That's just lame!
That BS commercial come-on you recieved from Who's Who doesn't mean or prove much of anything except that they wanted your money.
They sent those out to everyone they possibly could in order to get them to buy their book . . .including, apparently, you. But it proves nothing!
No one has, that's not the point. The point, which is amply documented, is that WW was a scam designed to prey on the naive, the weak-minded, and the gullible. It's not documented proof of anything, let alone proof that you got a National Merit Scholarship.
Read the above quotes. They threw in everyone they could. This just happened to include you.
If inclusion in WW is your ideal of robust e-penis proof, then from here on in I shall refer to you as Tiny.
No, no it's not a specific refutation of any charge I made. That you think it is really is revealing of your actual, demonstrated level of intellect and understanding. D:
It was a joke. One you still don't want to get.
Your entire premise is predicated on believing in the validity of false equivalency, an easily disproven concept.
Beyond the link I provided, I'd attempt to explain here what that is and why it pertains, but at this point, I'm convinced that you either wouldn't understand or would argue in response as though you didn't.
Oh, hell, I'll throw this in anyway. It illustrates the underlying logical fallacy of your idea that "true independent thought" requres I accept and endorse some current GOP positions. It does not.
I'm a registered independent. I've voted for Republicans in my life. I hope to be able to do so again, but there is little in today's radical-right-hijacked GOP that I can support.
My not supporting most, if any, current GOP positions prove not one thing about any "independent thought" I may possess. I understand that for you to grasp this truth would require some measure of honesty and intellect.
Throuhout this particular thread, at least, you haven't exhibited all that much of ether.
But since you've blatantly called me a liar, I'll return the favor and say I do not for one minute believe that you have EVER voted for a Republican, or that you earned a National Merit Scholarship. Prove it. For that matter, let's see you prove that Who's Who are liars. Not that "critics" think it's a joke, but an actual investigation that proved they have posted factually incorrect information.
As to my Dad telling me a fish story, I don't know how they do things under whatever rock from whence you crawled, but in Tennessee my Dad was not the one who determined whether or not I was eligible for financial aid. It was my loan officers, both at University of Tennessee and at University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, who delivered that news. That should be easy enough for you to verify as it's not a principle that applies only to financial aid, but to other parts of the government. An asset jointly owned (as opposed to one incorporated and divided into shares) is counted at its full value, or was in 1979. And I'm pretty sure that still applies, because I have a cousin who a decade or so ago lost a convenience store over his partner's medical bills under the same principle.
If you wish to
Predictably, Romney just put out a new attack ad that not only puts the Obama comment out of context, it selectively edits his audio to make it sound like there are sentences consecutive that are not, with the contextual lines removed.
404 - Point not found.
Where's the part were Romney belittles and brushes under the rug the work and effort of successful businesses owners and their accomplishments? It was nowhere to be found in that pro-Obama ad.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Okay, now I'm confused. Does Romney really want to be President, or is he angling for MSNBC anchor?
Just to be clear, we are all on the same page on agreeing with the ideas that the people defending Obama's speech think he meant, right? That is, whatever you think Obama meant, we can agree with the following basic idea:
Hard work, talent, and some luck are necessary to succeed in life in any field (give or take a few Paris Hiltons and trust fund babies), but they're not enough by themselves to succeed. You also won't succeed without services provided by the government - education for your workers, police and firefighters, roads to carry goods and bring in customers, military to protect the larger nation, regulation to keep anti-competitive trusts from warping the free market, etc. Government services won't ever be solely responsible for your success, or even primarily responsible - they're not sufficient by themselves. But you can't get by without them. As such, we pay taxes as a way of giving back to the society that gives us the possibility of succeeding on our own merits.
The government can definitely do some things poorly, and we should be watchful of whether it's using our tax dollars efficiently and to the maximum benefit of society. Still, no one does it all by himself, and paying taxes is legitimate, in principle.
Or is that itself contentious? I know there are plenty of "starve the beast no taxes ever" types out there, I'm just making sure that's not what we're talking about here.
Because if it comes down to "He meant X," "No he meant Y," there's not a lot to be said really, since anyone not convinced by the other side's reading at this point is probably not going to be. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
Hard work, talent, and some luck are necessary to succeed in life in any field (give or take a few Paris Hiltons and trust fund babies), but they're not enough by themselves to succeed. You also won't succeed without services provided by the government - education for your workers, police and firefighters, roads to carry goods and bring in customers, military to protect the larger nation, regulation to keep anti-competitive trusts from warping the free market, etc. Government services won't ever be solely responsible for your success, or even primarily responsible - they're not sufficient by themselves. But you can't get by without them. As such, we pay taxes as a way of giving back to the society that gives us the possibility of succeeding on our own merits.
The government can definitely do some things poorly, and we should be watchful of whether it's using our tax dollars efficiently and to the maximum benefit of society. Still, no one does it all by himself, and paying taxes is legitimate, in principle.
Or is that itself contentious? I know there are plenty of "starve the beast no taxes ever" types out there, I'm just making sure that's not what we're talking about here.
Because if it comes down to "He meant X," "No he meant Y," there's not a lot to be said really, since anyone not convinced by the other side's reading at this point is probably not going to be. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
All aboard! All aboard the diversion train! Can't have Obama's ignorant words that offended and alienated a huge portion of potential voters being discussed anymore. Must divert thread.
Line up here for your very own personal attack! First come, first served! Get it right here!
Line up here for your very own personal attack! First come, first served! Get it right here!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter