GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Powered by Genesis

President Obama’s Hollywood Mentality

July 18, 2012 by B. Daniel Blatt

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.

Filed Under: 2012 Presidential Election, Entrepreneurs, LA Stories, Movies/Film & TV, Mythology and the real world, Obama Watch

Comments

  1. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 18, 2012 at 6:38 pm - July 18, 2012

    Obama’s argument is faulty… i.e. WRONG. His conclusion does not follow from his premise.

    If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.

    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:

    If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

    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.

  2. Jeff King says

    July 18, 2012 at 6:51 pm - July 18, 2012

    In a world of nepotism and corruption he may be right but in most of America he is dead wrong.

  3. Rattlesnake says

    July 18, 2012 at 6:53 pm - July 18, 2012

    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.

  4. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 18, 2012 at 6:54 pm - July 18, 2012

    it is, by and large, an individual’s grit and determination which accounts for his success

    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.

  5. TnnsNe1 says

    July 18, 2012 at 7:41 pm - July 18, 2012

    The comments here use the word “logic”. There ain’t no such thing as a liberal using logic to support their position.

  6. V the K says

    July 18, 2012 at 7:53 pm - July 18, 2012

    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.

  7. Tom says

    July 18, 2012 at 11:38 pm - July 18, 2012

    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.

  8. TGC says

    July 19, 2012 at 2:01 am - July 19, 2012

    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. “

  9. Jeff 4 Justice says

    July 19, 2012 at 9:18 am - July 19, 2012

    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

  10. Mary says

    July 19, 2012 at 9:25 am - July 19, 2012

    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?

  11. V the K says

    July 19, 2012 at 9:56 am - July 19, 2012

    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

  12. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  13. V the K says

    July 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  14. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 12:22 pm - July 19, 2012

    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

    Here’s the paragraph that is drawing the most attention:

    “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.”

    Obama’s defenders argue the “that” in “you didn’t build that” refers to “roads and bridges.” I’m not so sure we can make that assumption, given that “business” is the noun that directly precedes the pronoun “that.” [ed: indeed! the pronoun clearly refers to “business”!] But… Even if we were to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in this paragraph, however, it doesn’t get him of the hook. The real damaging passage is the one that comes directly before the one cited above, in which Obama said:

    “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.”

    In this section, Obama isn’t arguing against Mitt Romney or the Republican Party. His argument is directed at business owners who attribute their success to their smarts and hard work. Business owners are clearly the “you” in this part of the speech, and Obama is scolding them, like a preacher, for taking too much credit for their accomplishments. Obama may not literally be claiming that government has built every business in the U.S. But he is clearly trying to urge people to allocate more credit to government and less to small business owners than they otherwise might. Aside from being unnecessarily insulting, his argument makes little sense. Everybody has access to roads and bridges, but not everybody builds successful businesses.

    It’s also worth noting that Obama made this argument within the broader context of arguing for raising taxes on wealthier Americans. He said those wealthier Americans that support him “want to give something back.” The implication is that successful Americans have been freeloaders off of government under the Bush era tax rates, and now they have to help pay for the roads, bridges and public schools that helped them succeed. But as I’ve reported recently, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1 percent earned 13.4 percent of income in the U.S. in 2009, but (under the Bush era rates) paid 22.3 percent of all federal taxes. The top 20 percent, who earned 50.8 percent of income, paid 67.9 percent of taxes. This doesn’t account for state income, property and sales taxes. So, in contrast to Obama’s rhetoric, wealthy Americans already give something back. In fact, they give back a lot.

    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.

  15. homer says

    July 19, 2012 at 12:33 pm - July 19, 2012

    “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.

  16. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 12:33 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  17. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 12:34 pm - July 19, 2012

    “that” clearly refers to roads and bridges, not to the business. Watch the clip.

    No, homer. It clearly refers to “business”. Watch the basic English word order. I did listen to the clip and it changes nothing.

  18. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 12:45 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  19. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm - July 19, 2012

    (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!”

  20. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm - July 19, 2012

    P.S. As Taranto has pointed out, “roads and bridges” is plural. If Obama had meant them, He would have said this:

    If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build those.

    Or, to cut Him some slack, He might have colloquially said this:

    If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build them.

    But He didn’t.

  21. Roberto says

    July 19, 2012 at 1:35 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  22. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 2:15 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  23. TnnsNe1 says

    July 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm - July 19, 2012

    #22.. haha.. So Obama is as “dumb” as Bush?

  24. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 2:38 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  25. Serenity says

    July 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm - July 19, 2012

    Seems the difference between liberals quote mining and conservatives quote mining is that liberals have the ability to admit they were wrong.

  26. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  27. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 2:57 pm - July 19, 2012

    People on GP make similar mistakes all the time, of which, I am one of thatthem.

    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.

  28. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 3:13 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  29. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 3:31 pm - July 19, 2012

    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*”?

    We know that liberals won’t admit to His meaning the words. Will they admit to His having goofed? Of course not.

    He gaffed, goofed, misspoke, whatever, etc. For the grammar Nazis out there, he should have said “those” or “them” instead of “that.”

    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.

  30. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 3:33 pm - July 19, 2012

    liberals have the ability to admit they were wrong.

    I thought Serenity was talking about a liberal listening to the clip and saying that Obama made a gaffe. I could be wrong, though.

  31. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 3:45 pm - July 19, 2012

    “Thatthem” was a joke.

    And I wasn’t also joking?

    My Cinesnatch, you do seem ready to accuse others of what afflicts you. (In this case, humorlessness.)

  32. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 3:51 pm - July 19, 2012

    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

    … 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.)

  33. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 4:01 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  34. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 4:08 pm - July 19, 2012

    As a refresher:

    “Go f*ck yourself. Your comments are passive-aggressive – often enough that probably you are, too. Typical leftie evasion. Lobbing stink bombs like a junior high schooler trying to get even. Why not just openly be a bitchy left-wing troll. We all know that in your heart, you are one. You don’t fool anybody, with your periodic shows of “reform” that last all of ten seconds. You do fool some well-meaning people. [You] mis-represent … actual views and actions. Passive-aggressive, lying, narcissistic. You are so……. completely…… full of it. You’re up to at least two lies now. Pathetic.”

    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.

  35. susan says

    July 19, 2012 at 4:24 pm - July 19, 2012

    “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?

  36. susan says

    July 19, 2012 at 4:26 pm - July 19, 2012

    look sud = kool aid

  37. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 4:27 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  38. homer says

    July 19, 2012 at 4:48 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  39. alanstorm says

    July 19, 2012 at 5:00 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  40. susan says

    July 19, 2012 at 5:02 pm - July 19, 2012

    Cinesnatch, i didnt bring up Reagan for mere worshipping, the question remains whats Obamas excuse since it cannot be senility.

  41. homer says

    July 19, 2012 at 5:03 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  42. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 5:06 pm - July 19, 2012

    #41 best comment on this thread

  43. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 6:06 pm - July 19, 2012

    Generally, such a person that writes such words does not have much of a sense of humor.

    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…

    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.”

    “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.

    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

    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:

    “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.”

    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].”

  44. ILoveCapitalism says

    July 19, 2012 at 6:19 pm - July 19, 2012

    (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.

  45. homer says

    July 19, 2012 at 6:28 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.”

  46. Serenity says

    July 19, 2012 at 7:21 pm - July 19, 2012

    I thought Serenity was talking about a liberal listening to the clip and saying that Obama made a gaffe. I could be wrong, though.

    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.

  47. Cinesnatch says

    July 19, 2012 at 7:45 pm - July 19, 2012

    Serenity >> I see. Thanks for being so candid.

  48. Rattlesnake says

    July 19, 2012 at 7:48 pm - July 19, 2012

    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.

  49. North Dallas Thirty says

    July 20, 2012 at 1:27 am - July 20, 2012

    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.

  50. TGC says

    July 20, 2012 at 1:44 am - July 20, 2012

    Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.

    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:

    You can’t be successful on your own. Somebody else has to help you. You can’t thrive on your own. The people created “this unbelievable American system that we have” are the ones to thank for your thriving. You didn’t build your business on your own, somebody else had to do that instead. The all powerful and benevolent government created the internet for the express purpose of companies using it for commerce.

    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?

  51. TGC says

    July 20, 2012 at 1:49 am - July 20, 2012

    The lesson: Obama and his supporters see morality, decency, and civility as things to exploit to use and shut up others.

    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.

Categories

Archives