The Gift That Keeps On Giving

For the sheer constipation factor, that which the Dems feel every time it’s mentioned, the “You did not build that” theme is pure gold. Like a cat with nine lives, trotting it out for affect, regardless of all the sputtering of explanations and clarifications, for longevity alone the theme will resonate. People don’t like being cheated, and they certainly don’t like others taking credit for their success.

The beauty of “going there” is twofold, not only can you trumpet the American spirit of in the pursuit of happiness through the sweat of your brow, but it tics the Dems off every time, as evidenced by those that cry in their beer over the dishonesty of it all. And it provides a kick in the shins to that planet healer with the supposed silver tongue.

If Obama thought he could distance himself from what will go down in history (if he loses) as his single biggest gaffe, he was mistaken. Here is what greeted him in Iowa yesterday:

The salts of the earth, them Iowans:

President Obama received a less than warm welcome and a warning upon arrival at the airport here on the second stop of his Iowa visit, which was aimed at recapturing some of the magic the state gave his run to the White House in 2008.
Greeting Air Force One as it touched down under sunny skies and sultry heat was a hand-painted banner draped across the top of an airplane hangar that reads, “Obama Welcome to SUX – We Did Build This.” “SUX” is the airport code for Sioux City.

I’m sure they meant that with government’s help, help in providing them with jobs so they could afford the paint, help in making the roads so they could drive to the paint store, and help in giving them that quality education so that they could properly spell “We Did Build This”, all that help is acknowledged ahead of time, there, I’m sure the president feels better.

A campaign spokeswoman said the banner was not visible from the presidential motorcade.

I’m pretty sure he saw it, or at least reporting on it.

If he thought hurricanes, more Biden gaffes, or even 30 year old college dead beats who expects the government to subsidize her 10 buck a month birth control costs, to divert attention away from this signature insult, or that the folks would forget that in Obama world, we are only blessed with what he thinks is earned, I’m hoping this is the longest two and a half months of his life.

Comments are closed.

  1. satch

    Yes, and what’s even funnier is the comment was no gaffe. Not in the purest sense. A gaffe is a misstatement. A mistake in the word you use to get a point across. Politicos do it all the time. This was a slip of the tongue into what the guy believes about private enterprise and who should be in charge of how it is run. And I am sick of the sycophants trying to prop him up by saying he was referencing all the publicly funded utilities like highways and bridges to get there. No one seems to quote the rest of the comment, “You didn’t have anything to do with that.” The meaning of that is clear; If not for precious government you could not have done anything, so there.

    This is why socialists suck at running anything. Who exactly do they think pays the majority of the taxes which make those utilities happen? All the payroll taxes employers fork over. All the payroll taxes their employees have withheld. All funded by those “who didn’t have anything to do with that.” No, there was no gaffe here. Just a clearly unguarded moment.

    Thumb up 13

  2. salinger

    .

    Yes, and what’s even funnier is the comment was no gaffe

    And what is even funnier is the fact that every person that gets trotted out in front of the cameras to profess their independent business building prowess has to the person been the beneficiary of major government assistance in one form or another – including Mitt Romney’s Olympic dream and Bain Capital.

    Thumb up 1

  3. ilovecress

    No one seems to quote the rest of the comment, “You didn’t have anything to do with that.” The meaning of that is clear; If not for precious government you could not have done anything, so there.

    This is why socialists suck at running anything. Who exactly do they think pays the majority of the taxes which make those utilities happen? All the payroll taxes employers fork over. All the payroll taxes their employees have withheld. All funded by those “who didn’t have anything to do with that.” No, there was no gaffe here. Just a clearly unguarded moment.

    Um – that is exactly the point. The point he was making. That the fact that the business could have the roads and the bridges and stuff was due to taxes. THE SPEECH WAS ABOUT THE FACT THAT TAXES ARE WHAT PAYS FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT ALLOWS BUSINESS TO THRIVE. The speech was about taxes, not Government. Seriously – read it.

    So, from your above quote – can I assume that you agree that it is the taxes paid to the government that has made America perhaps the best place in the world to be a small businessman?

    And by the way – the reason no one mentions the rest of the comment where he says “you didn’t have anything to do with that” is because that part of the comment doesn’t exist. You put it in quotation marks, which I assume means that you were quoting him? Or were you just writing what you think that he really meant, and putting it in quotation marks to try and pretend your supposition (read – guess) was fact?

    Or it could be that you’ve got a bit confused and quoted Rush Limbaugh, and think you’re quoting Obama?

    Thumb up 0

  4. Section8

    Or were you just writing what you think that he really meant, and putting it in quotation marks to try and pretend your supposition (read – guess) was fact?

    What was he saying lovecress? He said someone didn’t build it, someone else made it happen? What was he talking about? Who was he talking about? Why is the party he’s talking about supposedly not a contributor to what he’s talking about. What’s the justification for saying it? Who did make it happen and why?

    Oh and by the way, most people, including business owners, and fiscal conservatives, don’t have a damn issue with infrastructure and never have. They have an issue with the growing centralized version of it, and don’t feel they are getting their money’s worth out of it. Obama didn’t want to drill at it from that angle, which is fine, because he’s not from the frame of mind of efficiency or localization, he’s of the throw money at is school of thought.

    Now in that same speech he did blast the 10 preceding years of the GOP which is fine, but they were also of the throw more money at it school of thought, just don’t tax us either. That’s the major issue most of us have had here and throughout the country with the GOP. Now it is by no means Obama’s job to clarify this. It should be up to the new GOP representation to point out the GOP fucked up and why, we’ll see if that happens, but the you didn’t build that was an insult and bullshit no matter how you want to slice it. Business owners do owe MOST of their success to time, effort, risk, and hard work which is all theirs, along with possibly some lucky breaks, and outside help which they have indeed contributed to, as well as most other Americans have. No, no one can claim they helped build the 100 year old bridge, they can say they have contributed to its upkeep, and continue to do so today. That’s just damn obvious isn’t it?

    Thumb up 2

  5. ilovecress

    What was he saying lovecress?

    Well he definitely didn’t say “you didn’t have anything to do with that” – which is what Satch put in the quotation marks. Just wondering if it was a lie or a mistake, that’s all.

    But maybe breaking it down would help.

    He said someone didn’t build it, someone else made it happen?

    Yep – “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. “

    What was he talking about?

    Again – “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

    And if you’re not sure if he’s talking about infrastructure or not, check out earlier in the speech.

    And so now it’s time for us to take half of the money we were saving on war and pay down our deficit, and use the other half to do some nation-building here at home. (Applause.)

    “Roanoke knows something about transportation — this was a railroad hub for a long time. So you know how important that is to growing an economy. Let’s take some of that money and rebuild our roads and our bridges and our rail systems, and let’s build wireless networks into rural communities so everybody can tap into world markets. ”

    Sounds like all good news for business to me. I’d LOVE to hear John Key say that.

    Who was he talking about?

    Maybe reordering the sentence might help.

    “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build… roads and bridges..somebody else invested in that.”

    Why is the party he’s talking about supposedly not a contributor to what he’s talking about.

    1. Because no one person paid for the bridge. People had to work together (in a collective?) to make it happen – on other words “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

    2. You didn’t pay for that. Your dads generation did. It’s kind of dickish for us to screw over our kids generation just because we want some tax breaks. (This is my spin on it anyway)

    What’s the justification for saying it?

    Because he’s talking about the differences in the way Romney and Obama would pay down the debt and the defecit :

    “Now, one last thing — one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit. My opponent, Mr. Romney’s plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts…….I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently. (Applause.) Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to. And frankly, government can’t solve every problem. If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them. Parents — we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.”

    Who did make it happen and why?

    Your dads generation, and the generation before him, and generations of Americans who have crafted the US into an amazing place that gives anyone the best opportunity to succeed ever.

    Oh and by the way, most people, including business owners, and fiscal conservatives, don’t have a damn issue with infrastructure and never have. They have an issue with the growing centralized version of it,

    Cool. But that’s not what you’re all complaining about. The privatisation debate is certainly a worthy one to have (and we’re all having it in the opposite direction at the moment) but no one is saying ” hey Mr Obama – we don’t think that infrastructure should be paid for with taxes any more!”

    So what exactly is the insult? That Obama mentioned something in a speech that is ‘damn obvious’? Are you really complaining that Obama hurt some feelings by pointing something out that we’re not meant to mention?

    I think you can be proud that through years of people working together, and through (mostly) sensible government infrastructure programmes, you’ve built a country where the chances of your hard work paying off are considerably higher than, say, Rwanda, or New Zealand.

    Here in New Zealand – for years., the Government underinvested in export infrastructure, so I can work as hard as I like, take as many risks as I like. But it is difficult to get my product to market. In the US, collectively you’ve built the conditions that make it easier (or indeed possible) for business people to succeed. There’s some dude who invented the Slanket, who made a tonne of money because he did it in America.

    Thumb up 2

  6. Section8

    You didn’t pay for that. Your dads generation did. It’s kind of dickish for us to screw over our kids generation just because we want some tax breaks. (This is my spin on it anyway)

    And that could be about the closest we can get to this, but again, no one has said they don’t want roads or bridges, or haven’t contributed to pay for no ones, or provide for the upkeep already. So what is he talking about? He might as well have said you know that highway you took today to see me speak? You didn’t build that. Same thing so why didn’t he? He was talking about middle class tax breaks in the same speech, so I’m guessing he doesn’t want them building it or providing upkeep even thought EVERYONE uses it business or otherwise. It was for one reason and one reason only, and that’s to demonize the business sector. Pure and simple.

    “Now, one last thing — one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and our deficit. My opponent, Mr. Romney’s plan is he wants to cut taxes another $5 trillion on top of the Bush tax cuts…….I do believe we can cut — we’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently. (Applause.) Not every government program works the way it’s supposed to. And frankly, government can’t solve every problem. If somebody doesn’t want to be helped, government can’t always help them. Parents — we can put more money into schools, but if your kids don’t want to learn it’s hard to teach them.”

    Correct. Work on this first, then talk about anyone paying more. Anyone can say we need more efficiency, because it sounds good and talk is cheap. Go out and do it. that’s the challenge. That’s the real work. Where has he done this? Not sure where he’s talking about trillions of dollars worth of cuts. Wrapping up the Iraq war could be included in that I suppose, but items like this aren’t long standing established departments or programs, and never was sold to be a new perennial expense. Maybe he could spend some time on ways to be efficient in his speeches rather than blasting business owners.

    Your dads generation, and the generation before him, and generations of Americans who have crafted the US into an amazing place that gives anyone the best opportunity to succeed ever.

    Again, no one has ever claimed otherwise, so why did he bring it up? Of course if you weren’t alive at the time you couldn’t have contributed or built anything. No one is saying they don’t want an infrastructure now (ok, maybe you could find a couple people out there out of 300 million I give you that). Some just see needless expense. Apparently he sees needless expense too, but apparently it’s not really worth discussing other than in passing, or digging deep into the issue.

    “Roanoke knows something about transportation — this was a railroad hub for a long time. So you know how important that is to growing an economy. Let’s take some of that money and rebuild our roads and our bridges and our rail systems, and let’s build wireless networks into rural communities so everybody can tap into world markets. ”

    Sounds like all good news for business to me. I’d LOVE to hear John Key say that.

    Our rail system is for the most part private and has been, and is doing just fine. The passenger side is heavily subsidized and isn’t doing just fine. In fact, when Amtrak came along it was the private rail system which had to subsidize the public system outright to get it started. So yes, private freight did build that, and made it happen. So what’s he talking about there?

    Well, he wants high speed rail, but for what purpose? To help Warren Buffet out? The new rail would clog up private freight and rail forced to share the rail, so who foots the bill for cleaning that up? I’m guessing it would be the tax payer right? So more money for Buffet and his rail business which has for the most part been funded privately? Anyhow, most people fly long distance, and will continue to do so rail or no rail. Short distance, should be a local matter. This would be exactly the type of wasteful expense we do not need right now. Maybe he should take the efficiency part of his speech seriously.

    http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-rail-infrastructure/p27585

    While I’m for infrastructure, it should be based on what is needed, not simply what is great for business. It’s funny the left say they are against corporate welfare, but I have yet to see where they are not all to eager to make every aspect of it a government affair.

    Thumb up 0

  7. salinger

    Go out and do it. that’s the challenge. That’s the real work. Where has he done this? Not sure where he’s talking about trillions of dollars worth of cuts.

    The budget deal he had worked out with Boehner included just these types of cuts – including a raising of the age for SS benefits – a real tough compromise for a Dem. Saying that he has done nothing to address the deficit – without also mentioning the Republican house members squashed a deal to do so in the same breath as one calls out Obama for inaction is not fair.

    Bottom line for me on this whole issue. I would guess the vast majority of people pounding this – “he said we didn’t build our businesses” line know they are being purposefully disingenuous – the few who really believe that Obama thinks that people do not work hard to run small businesses still do not understand the context that has been removed from the statement – or are so infected with hatred for the man that they will believe anything negative about him.

    The above parsing by ilovecress is pretty thorough – if you can read through it and still come back with “Yeah, sure he said THAT – but what he really meant was THIS…” Well, there’s just no discussion to be had is there? And I think that is pretty much where we are across the board – there is just no civil discussion to be had anymore.

    Thumb up 1

  8. ilovecress

    no one has said they don’t want roads or bridges, or haven’t contributed to pay for no ones, or provide for the upkeep already.

    Yeah – that’s exactly what they’re saying. The Ryan budget proposes spending 25% less on transportation programmes. (I can go and find a source for this if you like, just a bit pushed for time now) in favour of tax cuts. Obama argues that we shouldn’t cut taxes to save on infrastructure spending (seriously, read the speech. It’s what the whole thing is about)

    Thumb up 0

  9. CM

    By 2016, Romney says federal spending will be below 20 percent of GDP, and at least 4 percent of that will be defense spending. At that point, he will cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, meaning it can never rise above that level.

    If Social Security and Medicare are spared from cuts, then to get federal spending under 20 percent of GDP while holding defense spending at 4 percent of GDP, “all other programs — including Medicaid, veterans’ benefits, education, environmental protection, transportation, and SSI — would have to be cut by an average of 40 percent in 2016 and 57 percent in 2022.

    Romney promises that there will be no other changes to Social Security or Medicare for those over 55, which means neither program can be cut for the next 10 years. But once you add up Medicare, Social Security and defense and you’ve got more than half of the federal budget. So Romney is going to make the largest spending cuts in history while protecting or increasing spending on more than half of the budget.

    Consider what the Romney campaign, then, is saying: If Romney is elected, then by his third year in office, every single federal program that is not Medicare, Social Security, or defense, will be cut, on average, by 40 percent. That means Medicaid, infrastructure, education, food safety, road safety, the postal service, basic research, foreign aid, housing subsidies, food stamps, the Census, Pell grants, the Patent and Trademark Office, the FDA — all of it has to be cut by, on average, 40 percent. If Romney tried to protect any particular priority, it would mean all the others have to be cut by more than 40 percent.

    That’s not even remotely plausible. The consequences would be catastrophic.

    And yet Romney is at pains to claim that there’ll be no tax increase on the middle class. As if cutting all those programes that greatly assist the lower and middle class can just be ignored, it’s only tax rates that determine their standard of living.

    If Obama deserves to lose the election because of ‘promises’ like keeping the Janesville plant open, then Romney is setting himself up royally.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Section8

    The budget deal he had worked out with Boehner included just these types of cuts – including a raising of the age for SS benefits – a real tough compromise for a Dem. Saying that he has done nothing to address the deficit – without also mentioning the Republican house members squashed a deal to do so in the same breath as one calls out Obama for inaction is not fair.

    Obama doubled the taxes at the last minute supposedly. If he wanted to go on record doing his part to make cuts, he could have still had Reid or Pelosi throw the original supposed almost there bill out there for a vote. He didn’t. End of story. I really don’t care about back room discussions as told by sources. That’s all back room discussions. Throw it out there then. He didn’t end of story.

    The above parsing by ilovecress is pretty thorough – if you can read through it and still come back with “Yeah, sure he said THAT – but what he really meant was THIS…” Well, there’s just no discussion to be had is there? And I think that is pretty much where we are across the board – there is just no civil discussion to be had anymore.

    Whatever. I explained myself, and the reason behind it, and so have many others. In the FULL CONTEXT. I’ve explained dozens of times. Everything from the bridge statement, to the “Let me tell you something” lecturing tone. If you want to chalk it up to blind hatred that’s your right, but one thing is for sure. You’re not going to change your mind, we’re not going to change ours. I’ll caulk your failure to see the issue we’re having about to your blind following of class warfare is cool. Fair enough?

    Thumb up 2

  11. Section8

    Yeah – that’s exactly what they’re saying. The Ryan budget proposes spending 25% less on transportation programmes. (I can go and find a source for this if you like, just a bit pushed for time now) in favour of tax cuts. Obama argues that we shouldn’t cut taxes to save on infrastructure spending (seriously, read the speech. It’s what the whole thing is about)

    So what? Maybe we don’t have to “THROW MORE MONEY AT IT” Maybe some of this can be privatized, or put back on the states. That’s how we kind of see things in America here as alternate spending options. Again, it’s not about investing or not in infrastructure, it’s various methods to do it more EFFICIENTLY. I know, probably weird and stupid, but please do remember, you have chosen to come to an American blog, so please keep in mind that just because it’s not “centralized”, does no mean that everyone is all for heading back to the stone age.

    Thumb up 0

  12. salinger

    I’ll caulk your failure to see the issue we’re having about to your blind following of class warfare is cool. Fair enough?

    I don’t understand the syntax here. I tried replacing caulk with chalk and the sentence still doesn’t make sense to me. It looks like you were cutting and pasting an edit and it got a little muddled. You want to give me another shot at it?

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    Anyone can say we need more efficiency, because it sounds good and talk is cheap. Go out and do it. that’s the challenge. That’s the real work. Where has he done this?

    it’s various methods to do it more EFFICIENTLY. I know, probably weird and stupid,

    Romney refuses to reveal the details of how they’ll achieve the cuts. So how is Romney’s talk not just as cheap? Where has Romney detailed all these “various methods”?

    Thumb up 0

  14. richtaylor365 *

    CM, I realize it’s not THAT big of a deal, and I have brought this up in the past, but you really should not plagerize other people’s writings. Your 8:54 pm comment was taken almost verbatim from this WaPo article .

    You need to source your comments if it came from somewhere else. Maybe because others here have given you crap from your sourced links, I don’t know, but give the proper author credit (or scorn) for what he wrote. A simple sourced link and the use of quotation marks will suffice.

    You are a smart dude, and I have no doubt that you could have come up with pretty much the same argument yourself, but what you posted was not your stuff, it was written by someone else.

    Thumb up 4

  15. Thrill

    CM, I realize it’s not THAT big of a deal, and I have brought this up in the past, but you really should not plagerize other people’s writings. Your 8:54 pm comment was taken almost verbatim from this WaPo article .

    YOU DIDN’T WRITE THAT!

    /obama

    Thumb up 4

  16. CM

    CM, I realize it’s not THAT big of a deal, and I have brought this up in the past, but you really should not plagerize other people’s writings. Your 8:54 pm comment was taken almost verbatim from this WaPo article .

    You need to source your comments if it came from somewhere else. Maybe because others here have given you crap from your sourced links, I don’t know, but give the proper author credit (or scorn) for what he wrote. A simple sourced link and the use of quotation marks will suffice.

    You are a smart dude, and I have no doubt that you could have come up with pretty much the same argument yourself, but what you posted was not your stuff, it was written by someone else.

    That’s exactly what I expected would happen. I was kinda hoping it would too, but I didn’t expect it so quickly. So well done.
    So here we are: damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
    Now I’ll quote and link again and people can completely ignore the substance and attack the person who wrote it. YAWN.

    Thumb up 0

  17. richtaylor365 *

    Now I’ll quote and link again and people can completely ignore the substance and attack the person who wrote it. YAWN.

    That’s not what happens at all. The usual pattern is ,”There you go again, linking to some lefty, HE is such a tool, but since you brought it up, here is where your source is off the rails”, and it goes from there.

    At least by quoting the link you subscribe the nonsense to someone else and we can rail at him for being a nitwit, but the substance still gets discussed.

    Thumb up 3

  18. CM

    That’s not what happens at all.

    That’s totally what happens. Try as we might, repmom and I simply could not get Seattle Outcast to tell us what he didn’t like about some Klein comments I linked to. He just saw the name Ezra Klein and the discussion was over. We tried repeatedly.

    At least by quoting the link you subscribe the nonsense to someone else and we can rail at him for being a nitwit, but the substance still gets discussed.

    Nope, it means someone will assume I agree with something else the ‘nitwit’ said/says, and then the whole discussion is sidetracked.

    So I need to decide which is worse. At the moment it makes more sense to just plagerise.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Thrill

    Nope. Plagiarizing is always worse. You get all the negative response to the arguments AND come across as too dumb to think up your own arguments if you get caught.

    Thumb up 1

  20. richtaylor365 *

    Rich:

    Ok, from now on I’ll just steal and re-phrase. So long as you don’t go looking for where I steal it from and accuse me of plagerism. Deal?

    http://right-thinking.com/2012/08/28/idiots/

    Clearly I needed to change a couple more word

    I re read that whole post and did not see where we had this discussion, help a brother out and give me the time stamped for the comment.

    So I need to decide which is worse. At the moment it makes more sense to just plagerise.

    I don’t agree, it is dishonest and unethical. Normally when you (or anyone) includes a link with a quote, some discussion follows, either an affirmation or a condemnation, but we have a clear link to who said what. I also think it is lazy. I know perfectly well that you were capable of constructing that thought in your own words, and it would also make it easier to defend.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    I re read that whole post and did not see where we had this discussion, help a brother out and give me the time stamped for the comment.

    August 29, 2012 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm (UTC -4)

    I don’t agree, it is dishonest and unethical. Normally when you (or anyone) includes a link with a quote, some discussion follows, either an affirmation or a condemnation, but we have a clear link to who said what. I also think it is lazy. I know perfectly well that you were capable of constructing that thought in your own words, and it would also make it easier to defend.

    I agree completely and utterly and I feel quite strongly about it too. Aside from the very last part. After many months of experience I can tell you that quoting and linking sidetracks the whole discussion. It all becomes about bias and almost a requirement to ‘own’ the source.

    Thumb up 1

  22. satch

    Hey guys. Sorry about messing up the quote. Definitely got it wrong. So let me get it right. Somebody else made that happen. And I still submit this is a foolish idea for all the reasons mentioned above. And no, I do not for one moment believe a punitive tax system made conditions for small businesses great. Believe what you want. The rest of us will believe our ears.

    Thumb up 2

  23. CM

    Nope. Plagiarizing is always worse. You get all the negative response to the arguments AND come across as too dumb to think up your own arguments if you get caught.

    Yeah look I said that and then did that out of sheer frustration. Particularly given the source thrown back at me by Xetrov a couple of hours ago.
    It’s http://hillbuzz.org/ or nothing for me from now on. ;-)

    Thumb up 0

  24. richtaylor365 *

    OK CM, I’ll make you a deal, in fairness to our readers and the integrity of this blog, I will refrain from shooting the messenger and discuss only the message, in return you follow proper protocol and link your sources with quotations, fair enough?

    Thumb up 0

  25. CM

    OK CM, I’ll make you a deal, in fairness to our readers and the integrity of this blog, I will refrain from shooting the messenger and discuss only the message, in return you follow proper protocol and link your sources with quotations, fair enough?

    Yep, cool.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Xetrov

    Particularly given the source thrown back at me by Xetrov a couple of hours ago.

    Because you don’t like the source, the facts given are irrelevant to your incorrect assumption that Obama is behind the increase in domestic oil production? I’ve never discounted facts you’ve presented because you posted a lefty source that couldn’t be verified elsewhere, even your endless GW diatribes. You can kiss my ass, how’s that?

    Thumb up 2

  27. CM

    Because you don’t like the source, the facts given are irrelevant to your incorrect assumption that Obama is behind the increase in domestic oil production? I’ve never discounted facts you’ve presented because you posted a lefty source that couldn’t be verified elsewhere, even your endless GW diatribes. You can kiss my ass, how’s that?

    That’s fine. You’ll see I didn’t criticise your source and simply leave it at that. Your source contained non-biased information. To me it was totally fine. I just noted that I’d get slammed for using something similar, that I’ve mentioned that again here. Ridiculous double-standards at play.
    My statement was correct – while Obama has been President (i.e. since 2008) domestic oil production has increased. I didn’t even start to get into the factors behind that. I don’t dispute the factors given within the item you linked to. But that wasn’t really the point anyway.

    Thumb up 0

  28. ilovecress

    OK guys last word on this, cos I gotta attend to a three day old Cress 2.0 Beta :)

    So what? Maybe we don’t have to “THROW MORE MONEY AT IT”

    I don’t necessarily disagree, and this is what S8 is also saying. I think there are cuts from all budgets needed, including infrastructure. But the thing is, you’re all arguing that Obama is insulting Business Owners – but when you go into details of what was wrong with the speech it’s about tax and spending policy. The two grievances are totally different things.

    I don’t want to get into it again – I agree with S8 that we’re not going to change anyones mind. But I thought with the nomination of Ryan – you’d have the chance to put the fiscal debate forward – rather than the soundbyte bullshit. There is stuff in that speech to debate. I’d like to hear the republicans proper rebuttal – instead the whole party made the theme a quote that, if taken in a certain way, and you make several assumptions, Obama may have insulted someone. Yawn.

    What if the theme of the convention was ‘the private sector can build that’ – or ‘you didn’t build that, which is why it cost so much’. Or even – here’s my budget bitches!

    Thumb up 0

  29. Section8

    But I thought with the nomination of Ryan – you’d have the chance to put the fiscal debate forward – rather than the soundbyte bullshit. There is stuff in that speech to debate. I’d like to hear the republicans proper rebuttal – instead the whole party made the theme a quote that, if taken in a certain way, and you make several assumptions,

    I do think the the GOP is going to have to be more specific on a plan and how to cut, especially if they are going to run on that. I agree with you there. I want to see some details as well, especially given the fact that last time the GOP had full control they acted like shopaholics which pissed me off to no end. In fact, it pissed off many of the people here who were around at that time. Actually, I think you were around here back at that time, so you probably remember the mood of this board back then. So yes, I agree they are definitely going to have to go beyond symbolism and catch phrases. We’ll see how it goes in the next couple of months.

    Thumb up 0

  30. CM

    OK guys last word on this, cos I gotta attend to a three day old Cress 2.0 Beta :)

    Congrats! Hope all is going well.
    I shudder when I think back to the chronic lack of sleep in those early days…..

    Thumb up 0