OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[StrangeSox]

I do NOT disagree with you on this.

 

There is no self made man/woman/child. That we agree on. IMO government IS necessary...it's reach, however, is where we seem to disagree.

Some people do disagree with that, at least on a polemic level. And then you have earnest disagreement with the radical libertarians who believe private enterprise can do everything better, including police and courts, or anarchists, both left and right, who are weary of government power.

[StrangeSox]

If we had left it up to the government, and private industry did nothing to push innovation...you'd probably still be in the late 90's web...which was garbage in comparison.

 

I beg to differ.

[Y2HH]

You know what, I'm not going to argue with someone who still clings to the "Al Gore invented the internet!" dumbassery.

 

If you want to talk about the government's role in the development of the internet, I'm fine with that.

 

Nobody that knows anything about the Internet (DARPA/ARPA, etc.), would actually say this as, "He said it, and he meant it!". In the interview in which he says it, he merely used the wrong words, the point was then taken and stretched out of context. The issue is, the GOP did not "invent" him saying those words...he said them. It simply wasn't in the context in which he meant.

 

Anyone that works on the Internet (such as I do), understands that this is a out of context joke. Even Al Gore knows it's become something of a joke.

[Y2HH]

I beg to differ.

 

 

Ok, you get credit for that bit of awesome.

[Y2HH]

And while we're on the subject of the Internet...I recommend this book to anyone/everyone:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-U...ds+stay+up+late

[StrangeSox]

Nobody that knows anything about the Internet (DARPA/ARPA, etc.), would actually say this as, "He said it, and he meant it!". In the interview in which he says it, he merely used the wrong words, the point was then taken and stretched out of context. The issue is, the GOP did not "invent" him saying those words...he said them. It simply wasn't in the context in which he meant.

 

Anyone that works on the Internet (such as I do), understands that this is a out of context joke. Even Al Gore knows it's become something of a joke.

 

Go read some breitbart article comments on any article relating to Al Gore or the internet. Many of those people still whole-heartedly believe that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. Sorry for unfairly associating you with those circles.

 

Al Gore made fun of it at least once on Futurama.

[Y2HH]

Go read some breitbart article comments on any article relating to Al Gore or the internet. Many of those people still whole-heartedly believe that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. Sorry for unfairly associating you with those circles.

 

Al Gore made fun of it at least once on Futurama.

 

I would not waste my time or energy on such a source.

 

That said, a lot of that comes down to people that really don't know much about the Internet, and are just repeating what they've heard elsewhere. That would be like me commenting on the invention of fuel injection...an industry I know little about. If I heard a trusted mechanic mention something about it, I might be convinced knowing that's his/her industry and incorrectly repeat it. While ignorant...it's not purposeful. If you show that Al Gore clip to people (just that few seconds), they'd have good reason to believe he said that.

 

This is why politicians on both sides need to stop taking things out of context...it leads to nothing good but a dumber public.

[Jenksismyhero]

But that point is wrong. The Internet remains an excellent example of beneficial government spending and the symbiotic relationship between public and private.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but i'm telling you why Obama's statement, while technically true, is idiotic and disingenuous. He could not stand behind his podium and tell Google or Amazon or Facebook that they didn't build their businesses on their own, that the government did it for them. That's bulls***. They gave them a venue to work in, but they did nothing to make those companies what they are today.

 

And yes, I agree that his statement was taken out of context, a little. But add that to the personal responsibility comment he made a while back and it's not really a stretch to think that he truly does believe that government is the great almighty provider.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but i'm telling you why Obama's statement, while technically true, is idiotic and disingenuous. He could not stand behind his podium and tell Google or Amazon or Facebook that they didn't build their businesses on their own, that the government did it for them.

 

Good thing he never told anyone that, that's just the silly quote-mined version. He was very explicitly referring to infrastructure in the dozens of sentences surrounding "you didn't build that," not their individual businesses. His speech was no different than the one Elizabeth Warren made last winter.

 

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

 

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

 

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

 

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office...oanoke-virginia

 

 

You're free to disagree with the philosophical point behind the message, but anything that pretends he was 'attacking' business owners is just silly.

[StrangeSox]

Just because it's funny:

 

GOP CONVENTION’S ‘WE BUILT IT!’ THEME NIGHT TO BE HELD IN ARENA THAT GOVERNMENT BUILT

[Y2HH]

Good thing he never told anyone that, that's just the silly quote-mined version. He was very explicitly referring to infrastructure in the dozens of sentences surrounding "you didn't build that," not their individual businesses. His speech was no different than the one Elizabeth Warren made last winter.

 

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office...oanoke-virginia

 

 

You're free to disagree with the philosophical point behind the message, but anything that pretends he was 'attacking' business owners is just silly.

 

He has a valid point, but he pushed it too far. That was the problem.

[StrangeSox]

Well it was a polemic, not a detailed and nuanced policy proposal.

[bmags]

Well it was a polemic, not a detailed and nuanced policy proposal.

 

He said it really stupidly. And I don't even like the framing. Why not flip it and try to convince people that these public services we pay for are important because they help our small businesses grow. He opened himself up for this by creating a framework where he's confronting small business owners for taking sole credit for their success...that's a tough framing. People like small business owners. And in general, small business owners do have a s*** ton of legal frameworks to jump hoops around that we should be working to simplify.

[Y2HH]

Well it was a polemic, not a detailed and nuanced policy proposal.

 

So it's ok to just say whatever you want as the leader of the US? Great. GRAND! WONDERFUL!

 

Maybe all of our politicians need to stick a sock in it and think about what they're going to say before they say it, especially in this age of instant media where everyone has a camera/recorder on them and active at all times. They all talk too much, and all of them need to shut the f*** up from time to time.

 

And detailed/nuanced policy proposals don't mean anything either. Because people let them say whatever they want, whenever they want, and hold them to no standards whatsoever. Obama, Romney, or can say/promise/propose whatever they want with ZERO intention of ever even trying to deliver. And what happens? Nothing. Nobody cares. The same people will just vote for them next chance they get. They're word is held in absolutely no regard...because the people are sheep, and the politicians know it.

 

There are too few actual independents out there. Far too few to matter.

[StrangeSox]

He said it really stupidly. And I don't even like the framing. Why not flip it and try to convince people that these public services we pay for are important because they help our small businesses grow. He opened himself up for this by creating a framework where he's confronting small business owners for taking sole credit for their success...that's a tough framing. People like small business owners. And in general, small business owners do have a s*** ton of legal frameworks to jump hoops around that we should be working to simplify.

 

Yeah, he did phrase it stupidly. No disagreement there.

[kapkomet]

He said it really stupidly. And I don't even like the framing. Why not flip it and try to convince people that these public services we pay for are important because they help our small businesses grow. He opened himself up for this by creating a framework where he's confronting small business owners for taking sole credit for their success...that's a tough framing. People like small business owners. And in general, small business owners do have a s*** ton of legal frameworks to jump hoops around that we should be working to simplify.

 

I give you good points on this post.

[Balta1701]

Yeah, he did phrase it stupidly. No disagreement there.

Here's my problem with complaining about his phrasing.

 

Let's imagine the President were to say this phrase:

 

"Now saying I have sex with goats, that's just not fair".

 

Is that poor phrasing? Because you can immediately take that quote, edit it into "I have sex with goats" and run that in an ad exactly the same as was done here. The meaning isn't remotely unclear, the phrasing is fine, if you include the 10 words around the quote.

 

If "accidentally leaving yourself open to quote mining if 10 words are stripped off from an otherwise clear statement" is stupid phrasing, then we've reached a whole nother level of inanity.

[StrangeSox]

His framing was dumb. Elizabeth Warren made the same exact point but in a way that wasn't so easily quote-mineable.

[southsider2k5]

Here's my problem with complaining about his phrasing.

 

Let's imagine the President were to say this phrase:

 

"Now saying I have sex with goats, that's just not fair".

 

Is that poor phrasing? Because you can immediately take that quote, edit it into "I have sex with goats" and run that in an ad exactly the same as was done here. The meaning isn't remotely unclear, the phrasing is fine, if you include the 10 words around the quote.

 

If "accidentally leaving yourself open to quote mining if 10 words are stripped off from an otherwise clear statement" is stupid phrasing, then we've reached a whole nother level of inanity.

 

After following this campaign, a paragraph like this is hysterically funny.

[StrangeSox]

Anyone engaged in rhetoric needs to be cognizant of what they are saying and what their opposition will say or do in response. You can't predict everything, such as the "he's getting welfare requirements" flat-out fabrication out of thin air, but when you're giving a speech, especially one that is forceful and will be seen as somewhat controversial, you need to be very careful about your phrasing and framing.

[Balta1701]

After following this campaign, a paragraph like this is hysterically funny.

Don't you have people to be firing? I hear you guys like doing that

[southsider2k5]

Don't you have people to be firing? I hear you guys like doing that

 

The funny thing is my line of work is much closer to your line of belief.

[EvilMonkey]

Here's my problem with complaining about his phrasing.

 

Let's imagine the President were to say this phrase:

 

"Now saying I have sex with goats, that's just not fair".

 

Is that poor phrasing? Because you can immediately take that quote, edit it into "I have sex with goats" and run that in an ad exactly the same as was done here. The meaning isn't remotely unclear, the phrasing is fine, if you include the 10 words around the quote.

 

If "accidentally leaving yourself open to quote mining if 10 words are stripped off from an otherwise clear statement" is stupid phrasing, then we've reached a whole nother level of inanity.

Like the media playing stupid trying to get the veep candidate to explain to them what 'legitimate rape' is so that Obama can mine the crap out of that. You know they were fishing for that.

[StrangeSox]

The VP should explain what "forcible rape" is and why he cosponsored a bill with that language. Why shouldn't the media ask him about his legislative history, especially when it's directly related to a current major story?

Edited August 24, 2012 by StrangeSox

[farmteam]

The VP should explain what "forcible rape" is and why he cosponsored a bill with that language. Why shouldn't the media ask him about his legislative history, especially when it's directly related to a current major story?

To be fair, the term "forcible rape" has a lot of f***ed up jurisprudence surrounding it; this isn't just some dumb legislator thing.