Anyone who has spent time about Hollywood wannabes (and yes, I once was just such a wannabe) knows that talent, hard work and determination do not necessarily yield success in this town.
Here, you see people work hard, hone their craft, invest their own money and receive little return. They may audition for countess roles and never get cast. They may write, rewrite and re-rewrite scripts only have production companies reject them having only read the log-line or the first few pages. They may raise their own funds and devote their own time to producing a movie, only to see it languish it film festivals — and never get a distribution deal.
And then you’ll see someone else, knowing the right people (or knowing the people who know the right people) or having the look — or the story — they’re looking for, move to town and find success in a matter of moments. It may not seem fair, but that’s just the way it is in a competitive business. Hard work here does not necessarily yield reward.
Perhaps, President Obama was thinking of the way things work in this part of the world when he remarked last Friday in Roanoke, Virginia that “there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there”:
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.
He’s right that every successful person received help along the way. There’s a reason the ancient Greeks honored Athena — and depicted her helping their heroes. They knew a man often required the assistance of others to accomplish his goals.
He is, however, wrong about who made things “happen.” Although most entrepreneurs received assistance as they built their enterprises, they did indeed build them. No one makes it own their own, that is, without the support of others. (And more often that support comes from the private sector, a venture capitalist, an encouraging friend or family member, a devoted mentor.)
In the end though, it is, by and large, an individual’s grit and determination which account for his success.
Far too often, in the entertainment industry, however, hard work alone often yields little reward. Such is the nature of a highly competitive field.Here you also need to have what they want and know those who in a position to ascertain those wants.
Mr. Obama may understand the way things work here in Hollywood, but he remains clueless as to the way things work in most other American industries.
Even Hollywood’s great projects, however, show the mark of individual genius., when you see a great movie — or witness a great screen performance — some individual made that happen. Some great actress found just the right way to realize a certain character. Some director put that whole project together.
Yes, they had help in realizing that character or making that movie, but in the end, the actress, the director “built” that role 0r made that movie. Neither was just some random player who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Each may have had assistance in achieving his success, but each did indeed make it happen.
NB: Tweaked and expanded this post since I first published it.
Obama’s argument is faulty… i.e. WRONG. His conclusion does not follow from his premise.
Fine… starting with your parents who gave you birth. Operative word in Obama’s quote, “gave”. As in, “gift”. Either they were paid for the gift (in His teacher example), or, they *chose* make it a free gift (as giving to you would be its own reward, for them).
The point is that either way, they’ve already been compensated. Legally, you owe (or should owe) them nothing. Morally, you do owe it to them to be a good person in the world.. which means, among other things, that you help others of *your* choosing (as they did).
That’s all you owe them. You may choose to give more back to them specifically, but that’s your choice. Their choice to help you does not *entitle* them to your life, just as your choice to help another does not give you title to the life of the person whom you helped.
Mature people understand that. But not Obama:
Obama is a fascist. Obama wants everyone to be slaves to the State, as the self-appointed representative of the Community. From the premise that some particular parent or grandparent or teacher(s) CHOSE to help you (and were already compensated, in one way or another, enough for them to not reqret that choice), Obama leaps to the conclusion that you are not entitled to the fruits of your initiative, because your life is not your own; your life is the Community’s property, i.e., the State’s.
But there is no logic in His leap. Obama has left out giant logical steps – hoping that you will feel intimidated and not ask what they are.
In a world of nepotism and corruption he may be right but in most of America he is dead wrong.
Some people are saying that, when Obama said “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” he was referring to the “roads and bridges” and not the “business.” Even if that was true, businesses are responsible for most road and bridge construction (even in socialist Canada). But I think it is a stretch to claim that is what he was saying, because that conclusion wouldn’t have anything to do with what he said just before that.
We often call it “hard work”, but that doesn’t quite cover it. I can work hard digging holes and re-filling them all day, and I will have accomplished nothing.
Or we call it “creativity”, but again that doesn’t quite cover it. I can be completely unoriginal, only doing things that people have done before, yet still create something (a good farm or script or business or job) that would not exist without me.
What is it, exactly? “Grit and determination” is part of it, but again, I can show a lot of grit and determination in pursuing a negative purpose.
What successful creators provide that entitles them to the fruits of their labors, is:
1) Initiative: the spark of their vision, their choice, to create that good thing which wouldn’t exist without them.
2) Morality: the fact that they’re dedicated to creating something good, something that others will find helpful or valuable, rather than something bad.
3) And, grit/determination: their willingness not only to work, but to take responsibility, to be “on call” in a way that other participants are not, to “dig deep” in solving problems rather than giving up, etc.
The comments here use the word “logic”. There ain’t no such thing as a liberal using logic to support their position.
I think it’s an extension of Obama’s views on poverty. If you’re poor, it’s not because you made bad choices in life, it’s because the 1% screwed you.
No one succeeds on his own… except for when the Democrat president kills Osama bin Laden, in which case the credit is his and his alone.
As someone who just recently opened up a small store, the more I head about the Obama’s “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” comment just makes more and more pissed.
I think Taranto said it best:
“The president’s remark was a direct attack on the principle of individual responsibility, the foundation of American freedom. If “you didn’t build that,” then you have no moral claim to it, and those with political power are morally justified in taking it away and using it to buy more political power. “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Obama said in another candid moment, in 2008. “
Romney will haul us off to the FEMA camps built while Obama has been President. Since Obama thinks NDAA and the right for a President to kill anyone he wants Romney will indeed make things worse right?
You know who else it gets worse for?
-Obama’s drone attack victims (far more than the number of LGBT bullies)
-the troops in needless wars committing suicide (far more than the number of LGBT bullies)
-The tortured prisoners (including teens) in Guantanamo Bay
-the medical marijuana users shut down by the Justice Department
-the drug war Fast & Furious victims
-the prison industrial complex victims
-the unemployed, the 50% of Americans in poverty, the majority of grads unable to find employment
-the future victims of the effects of GMO foods after Obama appoints Monsanto heads to the FDA
-the future cancer victims after Obama’s EPA raises acceptable radiation standards after the Japanese nuclear meltdown
STOP VOTING FOR THE 2PARTY SYTEM OF WAR & POVERTY
STOP VOTING FOR THE 2PARTY SYTEM OF WAR & POVERTY
STOP VOTING FOR THE 2PARTY SYTEM OF WAR & POVERTY
Or should I say the corporate 1party system 2party system charade?
Woman’s rights, racial equality, LGBT equality have all been uphill battles that appeared impossible at the start.
If we can spur an Occupy and Tea Party movement then we can spur an alternative party movement to:
1) Combat unfair election laws
2) Combat media bias/media blackout
3) Educate voters of alternative party options
How lowly of a single issue voter must you be to buy into this fear-based BS from the LGBT mega groups and LGBT media?
If you do not have the power to contribute to enabling alternative political parties to topple the 2party system then what makes you think you can attain equality? You DO have the power for both!
Just as we work to change the minds of anti-equality people, we need to work to change the minds of people who are stuck with the 2-party system blinders on and show them how evil it is to contribute to the 2party system charade…. How evil is it to justify Obama and his acting as GWBs third term.
Remember: Obama awarded Bush senior a medal, Pelosi said impeachment and investigation of Bush was off the table, and there are still anti-equality Democrats. They’re all cronies working for the 1%.
—————-
Gay Activist Rips Up Obama Photo In Protest
http://youtu.be/kQ0SXIWA8ao
Gays Supporting Obama Instead Of 3rd Party Candidates
http://youtu.be/8rK3Jvd0TOw
Insist Obama & Romney Debate 3rd Party Opponents
http://youtu.be/nCZuasjnXOA
Out Singer Linda Perry Not Into Obama
http://youtu.be/GwukjdRlQOI
Coming Soon:
Insist LGBT Media Report On Alternative Party Candidates
In addition to Obama’s Hollywood “mentality”, it’s also about his Hollywood “vanity”. He’s shallow and vain…just like many in La La Land. It’s always all about him, never about anyone else. And Jeff…feel better now?
With Obama and his cronies, it’s like a Louis XVI mentality:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1061146894&format=&page=2&listingType=Loc#articleFull
The inevitable: didntbuildthat.com
But what I love about this is, “You didn’t build that” joins “Spread the wealth around” and “I won” as the only memorable things Obama has said.
I mean, can anyone remember something worthier, from one of His endless speeches? I sure can’t.
Has the president or any other Democrat politician ever stood up before a group of Government employees and told them, “Without the taxes taken away from businesses and workers in the private sector, your jobs, your salary, your benefits could not exist. You owe the taxpayers not only your gratitude, but the responsibility to do your jobs fairly and efficiently and as a service to the public that pays your salaries.”
AFAIK, no Democrat has ever given such a speech; which is why none of us buy it when liberals spin that the president didn’t mean to insult business owners in his speech.
Now, as to context. I put importance on not distorting people’s words by taking them out of context. Some lefties are trying to claim that the Dear Reader was taken out of context. Was he? Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner takes a look: http://washingtonexaminer.com/context-doesnt-improve-obamas-comments-on-building-businesses/article/2502540
Yes. Successful Americans already give back a lot. Obama surely knows that. His beef with them, then, must really be that they don’t give back everything: that they don’t consent to be cattle, the complete property of the State.
“Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
“that” clearly refers to roads and bridges, not to the business. Watch the clip.
Klein hit a key point: Most people have access to roughly the same roads, bridges, schools and Internet. But not everyone makes something of themselves; still fewer create jobs for others. Why is that? Because it is the -individual choice- to be a success – the choice to learn, work, create something, persist, etc. – that makes all the difference.
Among mentally normal people, success is a choice. Likewise, failure is a choice. It is up to the individual to make something of the roads, bridges, schools, Internet, etc. – which by the way, NEED NOT be provided by government (but that can be a discussion for another time).
Obama doesn’t want to admit any of that.
No, homer. It clearly refers to “business”. Watch the basic English word order. I did listen to the clip and it changes nothing.
And for good measure, now I’ve watched it as well. “That” still clearly refers to “business”.
You can make the argument that Obama was talking off-Teleprompter… in other words, without the Teleprompter he can’t stitch two sentences together coherently (which is the case)… in other words, he gaffed, and it wouldn’t be the first time a President has gaffed. Fine, then: make that argument.
(continued) The point being that those are the only plausible choices. Either Obama meant the words he said… or he goofed, big.
We know that liberals won’t admit to His meaning the words. Will they admit to His having goofed? Of course not.
Instead, they blame the listener. (I am NOT talking about homer necessarily, whose politics I do not know, but about the liberal reaction out there in general.) “It’s your fault that you think the meaning of Obama’s words is their plain English reading! You do not understand the Lightworker’s super-enlightened, complex use of English!”
P.S. As Taranto has pointed out, “roads and bridges” is plural. If Obama had meant them, He would have said this:
Or, to cut Him some slack, He might have colloquially said this:
But He didn’t.
Even when Obama is right he´s wrong. Entreprenuers received help along the way. But to get started they had an idea and to bring it into fruition many had to mortgage home, life, and limb. If their efforts were successful and they were able to recover their investment; then they could plan to expand. The help they got was from a lender who approved their business plan for expansion, additional employees, and projected income expected to service the plan and the debt. As any guru of success teaches his hearers; ¨cookie cutter´ is the tool. Repeat the pattern that got you to where you are and it will take you as far as you want to go.
He gaffed, goofed, misspoke, whatever, etc. For the grammar Nazis out there, he should have said “those” or “them” instead of “that.” People on GP make similar mistakes all the time, of which, I am one of
thatthem.For someone to overreach and believe that he didn’t goof and was honestly asserting that people don’t build their businesses is disheartening. I mean, really. We know you don’t like most of his decisions as president, but W.T.F.
#22.. haha.. So Obama is as “dumb” as Bush?
Not sure how mis-interchanging a pronoun constitutes as dumb, but we all have our thresholds for what we define as stupid. And, no where has there been any mention of Bush being intellectually inferior on this thread, so it’s puzzling why it’s introduced into the conversation.
Seems the difference between liberals quote mining and conservatives quote mining is that liberals have the ability to admit they were wrong.
P.S. TnnsNe1 brought Bush up and got me thinking about grammar/pronunciation nitpicking. (Since there never seemed to be lively discussion questioning Bush I’s intelligence, one has to assume TnnsNe1 is speaking of Bush II.) I never understood the criticisms of the way he pronounced “nuclear.” For all I know, I say it the same way. And it never struck me as such a big deal. Go figure.
What a rationalization. For starters, while I see people make typing mistakes on GP or leave words out (and often do it myself), I have yet to see anyone say “I am one of that” (meaning “them”). Perhaps you can start doing it, Cinesnatch, to try to normalize Obama’s mistake. You know, like the mainland Spanish all started lisping because their King did. I expect you’re devoted enough.
But I digress. What’s important is that one liberal obliged me by *trying* to make the only plausible excuse, that would save Obama from having said what He said. Thank you Cinesnatch, you are one in sixty million. Bravo.
Now for what I came to say – As an exercise after my point at #12, I’ve been trying to come up with memorable Obama quotes. Earlier, I started a list:
– “You didn’t build that”
– “Spread the wealth around a little”
– “I won”
A few more came to mind:
– People who “get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion”
– The private sector is “doin’ fine”
– Having visited all “57 States”
Still no Gettysburg Address comes to my mind, though, as I might have expected from such a great President who is the new Lincoln. (cough) Maybe someone can point me to a great Obama speech which I just missed, or something.
Meanwhile, it looks like most other liberals are sticking with the talking point that Obama critics supposedly took the line out of context.
Again, I note that the “context” argument is mutually exclusive with the “gaffe” argument. It can’t be both. (If Obama gaffed, then He wasn’t taken out of context. If He was taken out of context, then He didn’t gaffe.) And only the “gaffe” argument has a prayer, among intellectually honest people.
Over on Planet Pomposity (#25), it appears, Obama has admitted to His mistake. It must be fun, to be entitled to your own facts.
ILC, oh my, please tell me you have a sense of humor. The “
Thatthem” was a joke. Honestly … lighten up a little. Or don’t. Your choice. “*trying*”?Devoted enough? LOL. If coming to the president’s defense for his words being misconstrued by those who believe he’s 100% anti-business is being devoted … then that must make the opposition … a conspiracy theorist? Read on …
One can start a list, my friend, but it will have as much relevance as the corresponding list of similar spoken-word gaffes made by Bush II. (aka none) Or, is this whole list thing your idea of a sense of humor?
But, it’s interesting how one puts the “57 states” mistake in the same group as “cling to their guns” remark, as one has nothing to do with the other. The former can be filed under “mistaken sh!t that came out of his mouth” and the latter is more telling in how he perceives a segment of the U.S. population. Completely different matters. But, then, those who dabble in conspiracy theory (“you didn’t build that” referring to a business), or jump in head-first (which I hope you never do ILC) tend to group together non-related events/information to cobble together their conspiracy theory.
I thought Serenity was talking about a liberal listening to the clip and saying that Obama made a gaffe. I could be wrong, though.
And I wasn’t also joking?
My Cinesnatch, you do seem ready to accuse others of what afflicts you. (In this case, humorlessness.)
… showing the hopelessness of dealing with you. You just. can’t. keep. up!
The point is that Obama hasn’t said anything more memorable, than those things. That’s what they have in common: that Obama has said nothing any more memorable.
I guess that for you, I have to spell everything out. (Jokes, and more.)
Oh, I see, ILC. You were joking when you accused me of being “devoted.”
Excuse me. It’s hard to decipher your sense of humor, ILC, when you’ve resorted to some pretty nasty (recent) attacks.
Usually, it’s difficult to ascertain when one is being funny and when one is not when one gets a little crazy with the insults.
Hope that makes sense to you, ILC.
As a refresher:
Generally, such a person that writes such words does not have much of a sense of humor. Unless, of course, you were kidding when you wrote all of this.
“But, it’s interesting how one puts the “57 states” mistake in the same group as “cling to their guns” remark, as one has nothing to do with the other. The former can be filed under “mistaken sh!t that came out of his mouth” and the latter is more telling in how he perceives a segment of the U.S. ”
They both equally come from a mouth that is loosely connected to a brain that mostly thinks
A)media will cover my ass on it
B)my look sud drinkers will drink this one too
C)i am convinced that my color & D next to my name will let me get away with anything
So yes the 2 sentences are part of the same category.
when Reagan used to make his few mistakes the press said he was senile. What is obama’s excuse?
look sud = kool aid
Hi Susan!
FYI, one is worth discussing and the other is pretty meaningless. Hope that helps!
And, again, thanks for bringing Reagan into the subject, but please refer to Comment #24.
It’s hard to believe any of you would leap into action on hearing someone say, for instance, “You brought us two light beers and three cosmos. We didn’t order that.” I doubt you’d even notice.
“And only the “gaffe” argument has a prayer, among intellectually honest people.” See, to me that indicates that you’re not being honest with yourself; rather, you’re so determined to view every statement by Obama in the worst possible light that you’re not willing admit even a possibility of ambiguity in the wording.
We don’t have to be determined to view every statement by Obama in the worst possible light – his own statements manage that, if you bother to listen without YOUR intellectual blinders.
Cinesnatch, i didnt bring up Reagan for mere worshipping, the question remains whats Obamas excuse since it cannot be senility.
No, I have to take off my blinders to recognize that more than one interpretation is possible. I have to put them on to believe that only the worst (or best) interpretation is ever possible.
#41 best comment on this thread
Obviously, Cinesnatch, you’re mistaken 🙂 Which, incidentally, would be in line with -the person described- by that comment not comprehending humor, or much of anything else, if it wasn’t written to directly validate him. Case closed.
Moving onto homer…
“That” would be a singular, referring to the unstated or implied concept of “that order we gave you”. But Obama defenders have claimed explicitly that Obama’s “that” refers to his plural “roads and bridges”. Not the same situation at all.
No homer, what I am doing is LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL WORDING. It’s usually more helpful and direct to do that, homer, than what you’re doing. Let’s look again:
Obama’s “that” is both (1) singular, mapping to the singular “business” rather than to the plural “roads and bridges”, and (2) most nearly adjacent to that “business”. Either one of those facts would make it more likely to refer to “business”. The combination makes it inescapable. No reasonable listener – no intellectually honest listener – can argue anything but that either (1) Obama meant what he said; or (2) Obama didn’t mean what he said, i.e., he misspoke/gaffed. But “what he said”, i.e., the dereferencing of “that”, is not honestly to be doubted: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that [business].”
(continued) So, if that isn’t what Obama meant, then fine: Obama can say “I misspoke. Sorry. That isn’t what I meant. I was thinking one thing, and said a different thing.”
But Obama hasn’t done that. Instead, his slavish followers try to blame native English speakers for their (correct) parsing of the words.
Yes, “that” can refer to a group of things, like light beer and cosmos — the group of things brought by the waiter. Or bridges and roads — the group of things not created by the business owner, including the research leading to the Internet, Obama’s clear, immediate, and direct example of what he meant by “that.”
Actually I was referring to an incident not too long ago where MSNBC was caught quote mining a Mitt Romney speech. I watched MSNBC’s edited clip, went along with the “Romney’s completely out of touch” narrative, and couldn’t see how additional context would change the meaning of his comments. Then I saw the whole speech. Additional context totally changed the meaning of his comments, and made for a decent speech to boot.
I still don’t like Romney, but I’m willing to admit fault. I was wrong. I jumped to conclusions and should’ve been more careful. But I was still wrong. Note that I’m actually admitting that, rather than trying to claim that context is meaningless and the quote mined comments mean exactly what I first thought they did.
Serenity >> I see. Thanks for being so candid.
Cinesnatch @ #24
This thread isn’t insular. People call G. W. Bush dumb all the time, and use his various gaffes as evidence.
As for the pronunciation of “nuclear,” I believe “nukliər” is technically correct, but as you say, there are many people other than G. W. Bush who pronounce it “nukjulər.” Apparently, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both pronounced it the same way as G. W. Bush did.
Serenity @ #47
Context doesn’t change anything in this case. That is why no-one has admitted fault.
I love how this thread is such a case study into the warped psychology of Obama supporters.
First is Cinesnatch going on about how “disheartened” he is — which would work fine if you didn’t realize that Cinesnatch thinks it personally acceptable to use personal information shared in good faith to try to blackmail public officials.
Second is homer talking about putting on “blinders” — which would work fine if you didn’t realize that homer categorically rejects any interpretation of any event that would in any way imply or state that Obama was ever responsible for doing, saying, or deciding anything incorrectly.
Last is Pomposity going on about its supposed willingness to admit it was wrong when its Barack Obama and Barack Obama Party lied about and misquoted what Mitt Romney said — which it then attempts to use to demand that people admit it is wrong for Mitt Romney to accurately and directly quote Barack Obama.
Again, it’s nothing more than desperate attempts at manipulating the decency of others. Cinesnatch attempts to play on the sympathy of others while repeatedly demonstrating his own unsympathetic behavior. Homer tries to insist on fairness while being categorically unfair and bigoted. Pomposity tries to exploit the politeness of others while simultaneously behaving in the most impolite and contemptuous manner possible.
The lesson: Obama and his supporters see morality, decency, and civility as things to exploit to use and shut up others.
So Homer, am I to understand that the greatest orator in history said a sentence, started another one and then half-way through completed the first sentence? Further, why would it need to be stated that a business owner didn’t build the roads and bridges?
Also note that he didn’t say anything about the roads and bridges being built, only that people invested in them. Those would be the ones who helped the process along.
To boil down what he said:
It’s patently absurd to suggest that he said anything to the contrary. He said that you couldn’t have built a business on your own. And then there’s the most asinine ASSertion about the internet. Private companies are who made the internet what it is. The internet, like roads and bridges are built by private companies and individuals FOR the government. Just because they paid for it doesn’t mean they built it.
You’ll also note that the government wouldn’t have been able to have anything to do with the creation of the internet at all if it wasn’t for computers built by private companies. They (government) didn’t build that (computers).
See how idiotic your argument sounds?
The MAIN lesson is that (to borrow from Homer) think we am stupid. Unfortunately, only the stupid could believe that a singular word can refer to plural items.