Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: You Didn't Build That Repub Fodder

Posted 8 years ago on July 27, 2012, 2:29 a.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic (5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Obama stumbles on his words while essentially trying to quote an awesome speech by Elizabeth Warren

The way the FACTS are supposed to be delivered - as said by Elizabeth Warren -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

88 Comments

88 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

The message of "you didn't do that, someone else did" is that you did not work harder than the other guy so you do not deserve reward. That is just wrong. It is not the way to motivate or inspire people to reach. It is not at all presidential.

Sure we build infrastructure that everyone benefits from. Sure we have a public education system. That is all good and we should recognize that. But don't tell the achievers "you didn't do that!"

Our system and infrastructure create baseline where everyone has a fair shake. The truth is that not everyone puts in the same effort. Not everyone focuses on the same things. Not everyone makes the right choices. Not everyone saves their pennies and spends their time creating, nurturing, and marketing their idea.

Not everyone gets to the Olympics but the ones who do get there deserve recognition. The people that win deserve their gold, silver or bronze medal. Sure their coach. parents, and others helped them get there however they are the ones who put in the effort. Not everyone earned the medal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk-n7ea-mjU

It is great to have a athletes and other achievers like this to root for and look up to. It is a better message to point to the achievers as a role models.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

What Elizabeth was saying is no man is an island. The success any person has is built upon the foundation laid out by previous generations.

Bill Gates did not become rich completely on his own. He did not build the foundation for the house of technology. It was already there. He built another addition on to it.

If their was no electricity, or electronics, higher math, a thousand different discoveries and technology, Bill could have been a pauper. If he had been born is the 1800's instead, where would he be?

Elizabeth makes a great point. We are totally dependent on one another for the accomplishments that are made, and the benefits provided by those accomplishments should be shared by all, not hoarded by just a few.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

That was her argument however that does not mean Bill Gates worked harder and smarter than 90% of the people around him. He does not owe his success to anyone.

What Obama was saying is that "if you have a business, you didn't build that, someone else did" and that is hogwash.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

I think it's obvious that Bill Gates "worked smarter" than other people. Of course some people would say he worked more deviously". A person can't work a thousand times harder to make a thousand times more money. Smarter has to enter into the equation.

Too often we improperly measure success in dollars. If Bill produced $20 billion in services, but received $40 billion in compensation, would you still consider him a success?

Where is Obama speaking? Only saw Elizabeth in this video.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

The original post mentions Obama misspeaking Elizabeth the collectivist.

Here is Obama.

"If you have a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJBvDnuXQ9M&t=1m36s

I understand that we all benefit from roads, bridges, doctors, teachers, books and many other things however I do not subscribe the the philosophy that success is dependent on other people. I don't think telling people they are not responsible for their accomplishments is the way to lead a nation.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" --JFK

That is a much better message.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Currently the real question is :

Ask not what your country can do for you, Ask what your country is doing to you!

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZO7XOpwa8

Obama misspoke in that video. He was saying that the businessman didn't build the roads and bridges and the entire system that helped him to become successful. He didn't mean to say "the businessman didn't build his business".

I'm no supporter of Obama, there is a lot I don't like about his decisions, but this is just a slip of the tongue.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

"If you have a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen"

No matter how you spin it he is talking down personal achievement and advancing the role of government.

The message is: "You couldn't do it without us."

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

The root of his argument is that he is asking the wealthy to pay a larger share of their income in taxes.

That is one method to diminish economic inequality and strengthen the economy. I prefer raising wages. Why have the government hand out a tiny piece of the pie when we can get our own larger piece.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 8 years ago

Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

The business owner - sure as hell didn't do it alone!

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

all Elizabeth is really saying is that the mega rich should pay taxes.

[-] 3 points by Freebird (158) 8 years ago

PLEASE, Give me a toll bridge or road, a private school, a free market business, a volunteer fire department, a private security firm ..... I will pay them for their services and get on with my day. Not one of them will DEMAND that I hand over a percentage of my income for the rest of my working life.

They will also not threaten me, coerce me, take my liberty or steal my property if I do not pay them (with loyalty or money) for their crappy, substandard, overpriced "services" for the rest of my god damned fucking life.

Governments are Mafias, writ large. Lizzy and Obama are parasitic megalomaniacs who have nothing of value to offer to their fellow man but their tired rhetoric. And that goes for the Repubs too.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Word.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

all Elizabeth is really saying is that the ultra mega rich who benefit more than anyone else from society should pay taxes.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

There's no such thing as a "free market".

There never was, there never will be.

Admit it, and get over it, so we can move along...........

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 8 years ago

thats not what she said. she was talking about ALL people who have succeeded. not all are rich or mega rich.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Freebird (158) 8 years ago

I'm a libertarian (anarcho capitalist, to be exact), and I don't vote, EVER.

Read my post again... I said "And that goes for Repubs too."

Go fuck yourself.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Freebird (158) 8 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

By the way, read my post again. "Go fuck yourself".

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Freebird (158) 8 years ago

Thank you, I'm glad you are coming around - this could be the start of a beautiful friendship! :)

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Freebird (158) 8 years ago

Anarchy means "Without Rulers", not "without Rules". Banks are currently under state regulation. How's that working for you?

Companies like PG&E, are currently regulated by... the state! They currently enjoy limited liability protection thru their corporate charter, which was granted to them by... the state! Wiki has a not too long entry on PG&E, a sorted tale of gov/corp corruption. The hilarity really begins under the heading "bankruptcy", where the state mandates under-cost price controls, bankrupts the company, bails them out and sends the bills to the taxpayers. Ah, good times.

Syria. Really? One corrupt state trying to over throw another corrup state? Spend some time on AntiWar.com if you want the truth of what's going on over there.

All the above is the result of giving a small group of people the monopoly on force. Ancaps advocate the Non-Agression Principal (NAP). Your assertions only expose that you have not done any research on anarchist philosophy and therefore you come off like a monkey flinging poo, incapable of reasoned debate because you were too intellectually lazy to research your opponent's argument.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

have fun paying for the police when someone kills your kids and you don't have enough money to fund the investigation.

Have fun putting out that house fire when your wallet is on fire inside the house.

Your argument is invalid.

With a restructure of monetary policy we could have these great services and greatly lower taxes for all in this nation. That's a better solution.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

we are all freeloading off the sun

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

I wish. Can I get some solar power up in here?

It's really disgusting how crony capitalism and the repubs have used Solyndra to scare the many of the masses away from investing in solar.

Solar is the future.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

the past (oil)

and present (food)

[-] 2 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 8 years ago

He stumbled on his words? What happened, did his teleprompter go down?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8277) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

Still working for Romney I see, what did you think about him pissing off the brits? What with a “special relationship” oh well, I guess we can kiss that good-bye, if Romney wins. I wonder what he’ll do in Israel. Do you think even Romney can make that shit worse? But hey as far as you’re concerned Romney winning is a win right?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

this is actually an anti-romney post and I point out what Obama really meant in his speech that has been taken out of context and propagandized all over tv.

Did you even read the post or watch the video I said Obama was trying to quote?

This post is actually in Obama's defense on this issue.

Still blinded by your weird conspiracy theory that I like Romney even though I've openly opposed Romney?

I called Romney a felon in a post the other day because he lied to the SEC?

Did you see my latest post about voter suppression in PA to benefit Romney? I called Tarzai a Scam Artist.

Oh that's right... in your world it's impossible for anti-war liberals to exist... silly me...

IF YOU DON'T LIKE OBAMA YOU SUPPORT ROMNEY - that's you

IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE WARS YOU'RE WITH AL QAIDA - that's Bush

Sorry I don't fall for ignorant propaganda..

[-] -1 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

I wonder if the Repubs are aware that they are sharing a policy they criticize Muslims for, re it is OK to lie to your enemies. They are doing it consistently, chopping up statements, removing context, editing to reverse the real meaning, and then criticizing the distorted outcome. For those who only have one source, they never get t see the original uncut statements in context.

Technically, I guess this is fraud. Didn't fraud used to be a crime?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

It is against the law for commercials.

Sketchers recently got sued and had to change a product because they claimed it would get you into shape. But they were no different than regular shoes. So they got fined and had to pull down the marketing ploy.

That should apply to politicians and super pacs.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It should also apply to FLAKESnews too, yet it doesn't at all.

I guess it's because they sued to lie and misrepresent..

All hail the mighty dollar that makes it so!

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

FLAKESnews? What's that?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Playing coy Trevor?

You know better than that. You're not new here.

Look up Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdock and Dick Armey.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

they behind the attacks on my computer?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Could be...............LOL

They do like their real thought to remain anonymous.......:)

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Honestly I'm not familiar with the term FLAKESnews.

I know who Roger, Rupert, and Dick are.

"Hehehe Dick Armey... Hey Dick... what's your wife's name? Vagina Coastguard?"

LOL

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Quite!!!

You know you can't use that word around (R)epelican'ts.

http://politicalsigh.world.edu/2012/06/19/dear-michiganvagina/

They're not sure what it is yet.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

The internet isn't really even all that sure what that is. If you google it a bunch of stuff for corn flakes pops up in the top search.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

See above comment on FLAKESnews.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

I'll accept that.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

honestly when you think about it...

It's really hard to believe it's not currently written into law that lying in political ads is the same as false advertising.

Oh wait the politicians write the laws. It makes so much sense now.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

Here's my radical suggestion: Swear in attorney's and judges and prosecute them for perjury. We should do the same thing for candidates and give them the Congress, "reserve three days to revise and extend my remarks".

Let them fix what they said and then prosecute them. Same for their surrogates, whose main job is to go out and falsely accuse the opponent.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

hey if they took Sketchers to court for their ShapeUps.... they should be taking politicians to court for fraud as well.

I like your style.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

Thanks. It would be really great to get to a place where each candidate actually said what they believe, what they want to do, how they want to do it and then in debates, they would defend those against their opponent and if they lie (instant replay) they get some meaningful penalty. I don't have a well thought out suggestion for what that might be, but hey, I have to leave some opportunity for others to contribute, don't I?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

What are federal penalties for perjury?

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

Well, I think you are on my track. I suggested that attorney's and judges be sworn in, so why not candidates?

[-] -1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Well not just that - but they should be - BUT every politician swears an oath of office prior to taking the office. How many are actually holding to their oath of office?

Can breaking the oath of office be considered treason?

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

Oath of Office - U.S. Senate

Oaths of Office For Federal Officials - Congress

Oath of office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or any religious body. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremony connected with the taking up of office itself, or it may be administered privately. In some cases it may be administered privately and then repeated during a public ceremony.

Some oaths of office are a statement of loyalty to a constitution or other legal text or to a person or other office-holder (e.g., an oath to support the constitution of the state, or of loyalty to the king). Under the laws of a state it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

when it comes to lying in political ads... if i could choose the penalty... the penalty would be having to create an ad apologizing for the lies they made in the previous ad and then correcting the lies... along with a fine.

[-] 0 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

I was think about campaigning from behind bars, not the drink serving variety?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Obama isn't the only one that bombs people in foreign countries. He didn't do that all on his own. He's able to do that thanks to the corrupt system around him that fails to impeach for war crimes.

it's crazy that it's been over 10 years and we still have to say "stop the bombs"

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

10 years? Whaaaaaaat?

How about a hundred years.? A thousand years? How about all of human history.?

I only recent American actions you are against?

Wow

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

We've been involved in the same war for over 10 years. That's what I'm talking about. Bush's war on terror that Obama still has us involved in.

Wow

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

We've been dropping bombs for many decades, Who cares what you call it.

At least this President has reduced the death. He has begun to undo the repub mess. Pres Obama is making progress. We must support that progress or we will be playing into the hands of the plutocrat war mongers.

recognize the real improvement and agitate for more.

It's the only way.

No More Drone Bombings!!

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Obama plans on bombing countries for all 8 years of his presidency. He has not slowed down on bombings in foreign countries.

We already had 8 years of war under Bush

We don't need 16 years of war.

I'm voting for peace. You can claim you support peace... but you don't. You're voting for someone who plans on bombing countries in 2013.

No more drone bombings indeed! Which is why I'm voting to stop the drone bombings.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

How are you gonna do that?

We are bombing infinitely less now than under Bush. That is real progress.

Vote to continue reducing bombing.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Libya

Pakistan

Afghanistan

Somalia

Yemen

etc...

Current talks about going after Iran.

Not bombing anyone at all would be progress.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Not bombing anyone would be a resolution.

3000 bombings compared to 1 million is real progress.

Pres Obama has resisted the war mongering republicans pressure to invade Iran.

You don't mention the repubs pressure. Why do they get a pass?
Why don't you compain about House repubs failure to hold hearings aginst the drone bombings?

'cause you support the repubs?

Partisan much do you?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Bombs that kill innocent people will always be wrong.

No one says "Bush isn't that bad because Hitler was so terrible"

Your argument is invalid.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I have heard of that very creative and dishonest double speak to cover up the collateral deaths we perpetrate on our supposed enemies.

What about it? You didn't answer my question. What if he's tryin to kill me? Should I let him?

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

My answer depends on 2 important questions...

How can someone shoot you with a gun from another country when the issue is bombing them from a distance where you are completely safe? Because they don't have missiles that can reach here.

And if bombs are not part of your question my next questions is...do you think we should be occupying foreign countries?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

We should not occupy foreign countries!

Bombing a"militant" (as matt and I discussed) was not the specific example you mention. In fact your example is certainly not possible. Our supposed enemies (militants, terrorists,) should not be drone bombed. I do not support that.

But if I am faced with someone in front of me who wants to kill me I can kill 'em right? Thats allowed, right?

Peace

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

to directly answer your question.... only if your life is ACTUALLY in danger. You can't just go out and be George Zimmerman and shoot minors.

If someone threatens you, you can not kill them. If someone attacks you with a knife or a gun or puts your life in ACTUAL danger... you have the right to defend your life. This also does not give you open season to kill.

For example a friend of mine was about to get attacked by a man. Instead of just shooting this guy he fired a round into the ground to scare him. No one was hurt and the problem was avoided and the police were called.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Ha. easy dealing with life threatening situations when you are armed I guess. I never had that luxury. I managed several without the benefit of guns of killin anyone.

The country could learn from that.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

not at all. Progress is progress. your denial of it betrays your partisanship.

And bombs that kill innocents is wrong. I am against it when it happens. That is why I support that massive reduction of such bombings that this great President has achieved.

I urge all to support the progress we've made so that we might continue until no more bombings kill innocents.

So there have been 65 innocent bombing deaths right?

We must get that to 0. Pres Obama is on track to do it.

support progress. Elect progressives. Vote out war mongering republicans.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

bombs that kill militants are wrong

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

You sure?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

yes

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Well then, that is one dead militant!

End the Drone Bombing!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

C'mon. What if he is tryin' to kill me.? Should I let him?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

no.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Militant is the term they use to define anyone killed of military age.

Meaning if they were to bomb an all boys college.... all the murdered would be called militants.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I respect you VQ, but take it easy on Matt.

He's very pure in his hatred of war, and I can't blame him.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I hate war too. And I think I'm takin it easy so far. I'm not a pacifist but I am anti war.

I wish I could say I've never had to protect myself, but I can't and when you grow up in brookyn you just can't say I'll never resort to self defense.

I'm sorry. I can't go that far. But I like Matt, and I agree our drone bombings of innocents must stop. So I have no intention of not takin it easy with him. I think we basically agree.

[+] -5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

I support progressives that want peace now and want to stop spending our taxes on bombing foreign countries.

Call me a sucker... but I'm a sucker for those that support peace.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I support peace. I'm also not blind to the enormous progress we've made in reducing the number of bombings (from millions to thousands) and reducing the number of deaths (from millions to hundreds).

I wish Pres Obama had a magic lightswitch he could shut off. I ain't that naive. I gotta accept this progress and continue agitating for more progress.

It's the only way. I can't attack and run down the guy who has reduced the bombings/killings by enormous numbers.

Republicans ARE the problem. Vote out war mongering republicans

[+] -4 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

let me know when Obama bombs less than 4 countries in a year.

NO BOMBS IS PROGRESS

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

NO BOMBS IS RESOLUTION!

Reduction of bombings from a million to 3000 is real progress.

We are on the path to zero bombings.
Support Pres Obamas successful efforts in the face of republican war mongers pressure to increase and expand out military use.

[+] -5 points by bearclaw (-152) 8 years ago

Elizabeth Warren is a socialist liberal idiot

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

if that's true, then I am Mickey Mouse