CSNbbs

(10-17-2017 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying those on the left did not intentionally pounce on Romney, they were very intentional about it and took advantage of an imprecise statement by Romney.

I suggested that the "binders full of women" was a poorly chosen phrase and not precise. And it was his imprecision that was pounced upon as being sexist, when it wasn't. Had he been more precise and said that they intentionally sought out high performing women and they had binders full of resumes from highly qualified women, the people screaming sexist probably wouldn't have.

That's not saying that Romney was wrong and should be blamed, I'm saying that he was imprecise with his language (he was) and people tried to take advantage of that and suggest it was something more than just an imprecise description of the situation.

It's the same thing as the "You didn't build that" quote that riles up the right.

One thing I just noticed. You used *one* example of 'imprecise' language as the case study for the misuse of the SMRH plank.

I think that any 'misuse' goes *well* beyond 'imprecise' language. A case in point is the TPM article re: Moore linked the other day. That headline of (paraphrase here) 'leading the charge against removal of segregationist language' has nothing to do with a use of imprecise language by the target. Nothing whatsoever.

And to be honest, I would say it is that type of SMRH plank that is far more common.

And, in all honesty, the same may be said of much of the Republican 'plank' of equating many policies to rank socialism (albeit there may be a common link vis a vis collectivism.) But again, the statements of 'Obama is nothing but a socialist (communist)(pinko)' typically have no basis at all in 'imprecise language.'

(10-17-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 01:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]And in all liklihood, the over-use of those accusations for people who just happened to be less precise with their language, is what caused that.

Given the widespread (pretty much unfettered) use of the SMRH (shorthand for sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic, as I am really tired of the effort to spell all of them out in the future) 'planks', do you *really* think it is a simple case of "less precis[ion]" by those speakers?

If so, the left sure seems to have a serious need for actual English instruction to remedy that lack of "precis[ion]". Pretty much across the entire population thereof.

Lad, just call it what it is. It *is* intentional. It *is* used to create an emotional response for the base constituencies. Please don't short sell it as "wow, what poor unintentional choice of words and actions".

Republicans and the right have their intentional, emotive, get an automatic knee-jerk reaction subjects and statements, without any doubt.

But, we are all fairly non-stupid people here. I don't think the lack of "precis[ion]" really has anything to do with this, nor the Republican/rightist phrases that are used in a correspondingly shallow fashion.

I will agree with the "overuse" portion of your statement; not necessarily the soft-landing "less precise" portion though.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying those on the left did not intentionally pounce on Romney, they were very intentional about it and took advantage of an imprecise statement by Romney.

I suggested that the "binders full of women" was a poorly chosen phrase and not precise. And it was his imprecision that was pounced upon as being sexist, when it wasn't. Had he been more precise and said that they intentionally sought out high performing women and they had binders full of resumes from highly qualified women, the people screaming sexist probably wouldn't have.

That's not saying that Romney was wrong and should be blamed, I'm saying that he was imprecise with his language (he was) and people tried to take advantage of that and suggest it was something more than just an imprecise description of the situation.

It's the same thing as the "You didn't build that" quote that riles up the right.

The problem with your "whatabout" regarding the "You didnt build that" is that the term was intended as a point to promote a goal, the goal (his re-election) being an ostensibly collectivist-centric one.

While used in isolation and out of context, the ultimate goal of that quote was pretty much in line with the out-of context and therefore exaggerated by omission use of of that portion. The ultimate goal of that quote was to feed the idea that 'successful businesses and businessmen' need to pony up more for the collective; I don't think there is anything more collectivist than the call for that. When you read the entire passage that contains that snippet, that is precisely what is being implicitly advocated through the entire passage.

I seriously do not believe that Romney's was being a 'misogynist-whisperer' or speaking through his 'inner-M' voice when making his comments. On the other hand, it is very plausible to believe that Obama would definitely channel an 'inner community organizer' voice (wait, I forgot, that was the good proportion of his professional career; and the *entirety* of his career prior to elective office....)

Since when did a comparison get turned into a whataboutism? A whataboutism implies you're trying to distract from a salient point by trying to point out the hypocrisy of your opponent.

I was not trying to point out a hypocrisy or defend the left's response to the binder o' women, I was trying to provide an example of a similar situation where an opposing political group pounced on a singular phrase that was poorly chosen or worded, and tried to do that for political gain. I understand your quibble with the comparison, but it is not a whataboutism.

You also are misrepresenting the response to Obama. He was not attacked about his line by people saying he was advocating for a collectivist approach. He was attacked specifically for suggesting people did not build or earn their business through their own hard work, that the government was the only reason people were successful, etc., and that specifically was not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting something closer to what you mention, that through a collective society, everyone has benefited from the work of someone else and that we should continue investing in that idea. But that was not what many criticized him for, he was attacked by people saying that Just look at this Fox article, which says: "President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects..." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/...alone.html

Also, you didn't actually respond to the thrust of my comment , and instead latched on to what you felt was a mediocre comparison, and I'm not sure why. It seems like we both agree that the reaction to the binders o' women was bad and that the response was wholly inappropriate because it was not an example of Romney being sexist - it was just a poorly constructed sentence he used to try and explain how he was actively trying to seek out qualified women candidates to fill roles in his company. I hope that those on the left stop crying wolf, like they did then.

Lad, the whole speech in which Obama used the "you didnt build that" was one designed to slut-shame business and business owners to pony up more, a very much 'fair share' argument. So there was a very decent tie to the meaning given to the short phrase (you really dont deserve all of what you have built and need to pay it back in some form) even in the context of the entire speech as given.

I guess you dont see that. I do. But perhaps that is the business version of dog-whistles.

(10-17-2017 08:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying those on the left did not intentionally pounce on Romney, they were very intentional about it and took advantage of an imprecise statement by Romney.

I suggested that the "binders full of women" was a poorly chosen phrase and not precise. And it was his imprecision that was pounced upon as being sexist, when it wasn't. Had he been more precise and said that they intentionally sought out high performing women and they had binders full of resumes from highly qualified women, the people screaming sexist probably wouldn't have.

That's not saying that Romney was wrong and should be blamed, I'm saying that he was imprecise with his language (he was) and people tried to take advantage of that and suggest it was something more than just an imprecise description of the situation.

It's the same thing as the "You didn't build that" quote that riles up the right.

One thing I just noticed. You used *one* example of 'imprecise' language as the case study for the misuse of the SMRH plank.

I think that any 'misuse' goes *well* beyond 'imprecise' language. A case in point is the TPM article re: Moore linked the other day. That headline of (paraphrase here) 'leading the charge against removal of segregationist language' has nothing to do with a use of imprecise language by the target. Nothing whatsoever.

And to be honest, I would say it is that type of SMRH plank that is far more common.

And, in all honesty, the same may be said of much of the Republican 'plank' of equating many policies to rank socialism (albeit there may be a common link vis a vis collectivism.) But again, the statements of 'Obama is nothing but a socialist (communist)(pinko)' typically have no basis at all in 'imprecise language.'

I used one example because you brought up that example...

But OK, I have no interest in arguing this point with you, because frankly, you're arguing severe semantics and I generally agree with you. This is unpleasant.

(10-17-2017 08:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 06:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 03:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 02:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Given the widespread (pretty much unfettered) use of the SMRH (shorthand for sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobic, as I am really tired of the effort to spell all of them out in the future) 'planks', do you *really* think it is a simple case of "less precis[ion]" by those speakers?

If so, the left sure seems to have a serious need for actual English instruction to remedy that lack of "precis[ion]". Pretty much across the entire population thereof.

Lad, just call it what it is. It *is* intentional. It *is* used to create an emotional response for the base constituencies. Please don't short sell it as "wow, what poor unintentional choice of words and actions".

Republicans and the right have their intentional, emotive, get an automatic knee-jerk reaction subjects and statements, without any doubt.

But, we are all fairly non-stupid people here. I don't think the lack of "precis[ion]" really has anything to do with this, nor the Republican/rightist phrases that are used in a correspondingly shallow fashion.

I will agree with the "overuse" portion of your statement; not necessarily the soft-landing "less precise" portion though.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not saying those on the left did not intentionally pounce on Romney, they were very intentional about it and took advantage of an imprecise statement by Romney.

I suggested that the "binders full of women" was a poorly chosen phrase and not precise. And it was his imprecision that was pounced upon as being sexist, when it wasn't. Had he been more precise and said that they intentionally sought out high performing women and they had binders full of resumes from highly qualified women, the people screaming sexist probably wouldn't have.

That's not saying that Romney was wrong and should be blamed, I'm saying that he was imprecise with his language (he was) and people tried to take advantage of that and suggest it was something more than just an imprecise description of the situation.

It's the same thing as the "You didn't build that" quote that riles up the right.

The problem with your "whatabout" regarding the "You didnt build that" is that the term was intended as a point to promote a goal, the goal (his re-election) being an ostensibly collectivist-centric one.

While used in isolation and out of context, the ultimate goal of that quote was pretty much in line with the out-of context and therefore exaggerated by omission use of of that portion. The ultimate goal of that quote was to feed the idea that 'successful businesses and businessmen' need to pony up more for the collective; I don't think there is anything more collectivist than the call for that. When you read the entire passage that contains that snippet, that is precisely what is being implicitly advocated through the entire passage.

I seriously do not believe that Romney's was being a 'misogynist-whisperer' or speaking through his 'inner-M' voice when making his comments. On the other hand, it is very plausible to believe that Obama would definitely channel an 'inner community organizer' voice (wait, I forgot, that was the good proportion of his professional career; and the *entirety* of his career prior to elective office....)

Since when did a comparison get turned into a whataboutism? A whataboutism implies you're trying to distract from a salient point by trying to point out the hypocrisy of your opponent.

I was not trying to point out a hypocrisy or defend the left's response to the binder o' women, I was trying to provide an example of a similar situation where an opposing political group pounced on a singular phrase that was poorly chosen or worded, and tried to do that for political gain. I understand your quibble with the comparison, but it is not a whataboutism.

You also are misrepresenting the response to Obama. He was not attacked about his line by people saying he was advocating for a collectivist approach. He was attacked specifically for suggesting people did not build or earn their business through their own hard work, that the government was the only reason people were successful, etc., and that specifically was not what he was suggesting. He was suggesting something closer to what you mention, that through a collective society, everyone has benefited from the work of someone else and that we should continue investing in that idea. But that was not what many criticized him for, he was attacked by people saying that Just look at this Fox article, which says: "President Obama, in a speech to supporters, suggested business owners owe their success to government investment in infrastructure and other projects..." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/...alone.html

Also, you didn't actually respond to the thrust of my comment , and instead latched on to what you felt was a mediocre comparison, and I'm not sure why. It seems like we both agree that the reaction to the binders o' women was bad and that the response was wholly inappropriate because it was not an example of Romney being sexist - it was just a poorly constructed sentence he used to try and explain how he was actively trying to seek out qualified women candidates to fill roles in his company. I hope that those on the left stop crying wolf, like they did then.

Lad, the whole speech in which Obama used the "you didnt build that" was one designed to slut-shame business and business owners to pony up more, a very much 'fair share' argument. So there was a very decent tie to the meaning given to the short phrase (you really dont deserve all of what you have built and need to pay it back in some form) even in the context of the entire speech as given.

I guess you dont see that. I do. But perhaps that is the business version of dog-whistles.

No, I do see that and I understand your point. I was not refuting your perspective on the goal of his comment/speech.

What I refuted was that the criticisms publicly levied against Obama for that phrase were not the same criticisms as what you are saying. He was widely criticized by the right leaning media, and many conservatives for, according to those people, suggesting that people who built successful businesses did not build them. And they felt that he was trying to minimize their contributions to their own success down to nothing, which he obviously wasn't.

Your criticisms appears to be that he was asking business owners to pay more because they were not paying their fair share, which doesn't appear to wade into the territory of how much someone contributed to their own success, even if you talk about deserving what was built.

It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with what Obama said in that speech and say that you think that business owners have paid their fair share, or even that they pay more than their fair share, and that Obama undervalued that and he over-valued the role of government in providing an environment where businesses can grow. It is disingenuous to say that when he said that line, "you didn't build that,"that he was talking about the individual's business that they built.

(10-17-2017 09:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]No, I do see that and I understand your point. I was not refuting your perspective on the goal of his comment/speech.
What I refuted was that the criticisms publicly levied against Obama for that phrase were not the same criticisms as what you are saying. He was widely criticized by the right leaning media, and many conservatives for, according to those people, suggesting that people who built successful businesses did not build them. And they felt that he was trying to minimize their contributions to their own success down to nothing, which he obviously wasn't.

Oh, I think he obviously WAS trying to do precisely that, and I find it very difficult to find anything to support the notion that he wasn't. It certainly is not obvious that he wasn't.

Quote:Your criticisms appears to be that he was asking business owners to pay more because they were not paying their fair share, which doesn't appear to wade into the territory of how much someone contributed to their own success, even if you talk about deserving what was built.

Sorry, but I think you are spinning it pretty hard to get there. I don't know how you express the collectivist principle in your restatement of Tanq's statement without wading pretty far into the territory that you say he didn't wade into. You are doing some very fine hair splitting about a very serious consideration. "You didn't build that," is squarely in the middle of the territory that you say he didn't wade into.

This is what concerns me. Obama has said a lot of things that could easily have come out of the mouth of Karl Marx or Chairman Mao. This is one of them. When any of them have been called out, the response from supporters has always been "oh, that's not what he meant." If he didn't mean that, then why did he say it? And if he did mean it, what does that imply? If he didn't mean, "you didn't build that," then why did he say it?

Quote:It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with what Obama said in that speech and say that you think that business owners have paid their fair share, or even that they pay more than their fair share, and that Obama undervalued that and he over-valued the role of government in providing an environment where businesses can grow. It is disingenuous to say that when he said that line, "you didn't build that," that he was talking about the individual's business that they built.

I find the last sentence puzzling. I see no basis for it. Please explain further.

(10-18-2017 06:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-17-2017 09:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]No, I do see that and I understand your point. I was not refuting your perspective on the goal of his comment/speech.
What I refuted was that the criticisms publicly levied against Obama for that phrase were not the same criticisms as what you are saying. He was widely criticized by the right leaning media, and many conservatives for, according to those people, suggesting that people who built successful businesses did not build them. And they felt that he was trying to minimize their contributions to their own success down to nothing, which he obviously wasn't.

Oh, I think he obviously WAS trying to do precisely that, and I find it very difficult to find anything to support the notion that he wasn't. It certainly is not obvious that he wasn't.

Quote:Your criticisms appears to be that he was asking business owners to pay more because they were not paying their fair share, which doesn't appear to wade into the territory of how much someone contributed to their own success, even if you talk about deserving what was built.

Sorry, but I think you are spinning it pretty hard to get there. I don't know how you express the collectivist principle in your restatement of Tanq's statement without wading pretty far into the territory that you say he didn't wade into. You are doing some very fine hair splitting about a very serious consideration. "You didn't build that," is squarely in the middle of the territory that you say he didn't wade into.

This is what concerns me. Obama has said a lot of things that could easily have come out of the mouth of Karl Marx or Chairman Mao. This is one of them. When any of them have been called out, the response from supporters has always been "oh, that's not what he meant." If he didn't mean that, then why did he say it? And if he did mean it, what does that imply? If he didn't mean, "you didn't build that," then why did he say it?

Quote:It's perfectly reasonable to disagree with what Obama said in that speech and say that you think that business owners have paid their fair share, or even that they pay more than their fair share, and that Obama undervalued that and he over-valued the role of government in providing an environment where businesses can grow. It is disingenuous to say that when he said that line, "you didn't build that," that he was talking about the individual's business that they built.

I find the last sentence puzzling. I see no basis for it. Please explain further.

He was referencing the American system and road and bridges he was talking about before he mentioned the business. It’s pretty clear that he believes in working as a community, and that fits perfectly in line with that belief. That the community funds the American system and infrastructure that is needed for a business to thrive, and individual business owners don’t build that.

That fits with Tanq’s description of the situation as well, that Obama was trying to shake business owners into paying more into the American system/infrastructure that he referenced.

I am not spinning it hard...

(10-18-2017 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]He was referencing the American system and road and bridges he was talking about before he mentioned the business. It’s pretty clear that he believes in working as a community, and that fits perfectly in line with that belief. That the community funds the American system and infrastructure that is needed for a business to thrive, and individual business owners don’t build that.
That fits with Tanq’s description of the situation as well, that Obama was trying to shake business owners into paying more into the American system/infrastructure that he referenced.
I am not spinning it hard...

I agree that he is trying to shake money out of successful businesses so he can redistribute it to people who will vote for him. Rob Peter to pay Paul, and Paul will vote for you--fundamental principle of democrat politics.

But, "you didn't build that," has a very specific meaning--you didn't build that.

I'm not saying that you personally are a collectivist, but I am saying that Obama is.

(10-18-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]He was referencing the American system and road and bridges he was talking about before he mentioned the business. It’s pretty clear that he believes in working as a community, and that fits perfectly in line with that belief. That the community funds the American system and infrastructure that is needed for a business to thrive, and individual business owners don’t build that.
That fits with Tanq’s description of the situation as well, that Obama was trying to shake business owners into paying more into the American system/infrastructure that he referenced.
I am not spinning it hard...

I agree that he is trying to shake money out of successful businesses so he can redistribute it to people who will vote for him. Rob Peter to pay Paul, and Paul will vote for you--fundamental principle of democrat politics.

But, "you didn't build that," has a very specific meaning--you didn't build that.

I'm not saying that you personally are a collectivist, but I am saying that Obama is.

Yea, it means you didn’t build that. We disagree on what “that” was referring to, which to me, isn’t such an out there scenario. That is why it’s a bit offensive for you to suggest I am spinning it hard when what I am doing is using contextual clues to conclude that he was talking about the American system/infrastructure he spoke about right before he said the line, as opposed to a personal business.

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I do not know one single person who wants to turn back the clock on equality, inclusiveness, or civil rights. What a myth he has swallowed.

You may not *know* personally such people, (I do unfortunately) but you may *know of* such people: Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump for starters. And a whole bunch of other Republican elected officials. It's all well and good for you and Tang and Owl69 to get your knickers in a twist, but the *actual policies* Republicans are implementing and attempting to implement verify my "myth".

Just to take one: LBGTQ rights. Do you have any idea how many protections the Trump admin has already rolled back? Have you seen the things some of the judges he's trying to appoint have said? Now we find out he "jokes" about how Pence "wants to hang" all the gays. Hilarious! I'm sure Matthew Shepherd's mother is laughing her a** off, as are all the other loved ones of gay and trans people who have been beaten and killed in hate crimes against them.

(10-18-2017 07:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yea, it means you didn’t build that. We disagree on what “that” was referring to, which to me, isn’t such an out there scenario. That is why it’s a bit offensive for you to suggest I am spinning it hard when what I am doing is using contextual clues to conclude that he was talking about the American system/infrastructure he spoke about right before he said the line, as opposed to a personal business.

Exactly. I can't believe we are still debating this. Here's the larger context:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-did...-unedited/

He is so clearly meaning evil collectivist ventures like the fire department, the intranet, and the grandaddy of them all, the communist interstate highway system, implemented by Comrade Eisenhower.

(10-18-2017 07:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]He was referencing the American system and road and bridges he was talking about before he mentioned the business. It’s pretty clear that he believes in working as a community, and that fits perfectly in line with that belief. That the community funds the American system and infrastructure that is needed for a business to thrive, and individual business owners don’t build that.
That fits with Tanq’s description of the situation as well, that Obama was trying to shake business owners into paying more into the American system/infrastructure that he referenced.
I am not spinning it hard...

I agree that he is trying to shake money out of successful businesses so he can redistribute it to people who will vote for him. Rob Peter to pay Paul, and Paul will vote for you--fundamental principle of democrat politics.
But, "you didn't build that," has a very specific meaning--you didn't build that.
I'm not saying that you personally are a collectivist, but I am saying that Obama is.

Yea, it means you didn’t build that. We disagree on what “that” was referring to, which to me, isn’t such an out there scenario. That is why it’s a bit offensive for you to suggest I am spinning it hard when what I am doing is using contextual clues to conclude that he was talking about the American system/infrastructure he spoke about right before he said the line, as opposed to a personal business.

"if you've got a business, you didn't build that"

OK, I will agree that it is obscure enough in the context that someone could determine that the "that" wasn't the business. But here's my problem. Obama was very precise in crafting most of his statements on a wide range of issues, so that his supporters could always have a basis for saying, "he didn't mean that, he meant this." If you always want to interpret every one of those statements in the way most favorable to him, fine. I don't. I don't give them all the worst possible interpretation, either. That would put him somewhere between Marx and Lenin if I did.

But I do find it alarming. He (and apparently you too) clearly has a more collectivist world view than do I. We are just not going to see things like this the same way.

(10-18-2017 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 07:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]He was referencing the American system and road and bridges he was talking about before he mentioned the business. It’s pretty clear that he believes in working as a community, and that fits perfectly in line with that belief. That the community funds the American system and infrastructure that is needed for a business to thrive, and individual business owners don’t build that.
That fits with Tanq’s description of the situation as well, that Obama was trying to shake business owners into paying more into the American system/infrastructure that he referenced.
I am not spinning it hard...

I agree that he is trying to shake money out of successful businesses so he can redistribute it to people who will vote for him. Rob Peter to pay Paul, and Paul will vote for you--fundamental principle of democrat politics.
But, "you didn't build that," has a very specific meaning--you didn't build that.
I'm not saying that you personally are a collectivist, but I am saying that Obama is.

Yea, it means you didn’t build that. We disagree on what “that” was referring to, which to me, isn’t such an out there scenario. That is why it’s a bit offensive for you to suggest I am spinning it hard when what I am doing is using contextual clues to conclude that he was talking about the American system/infrastructure he spoke about right before he said the line, as opposed to a personal business.

"if you've got a business, you didn't build that"

OK, I will agree that it is obscure enough in the context that someone could determine that the "that" wasn't the business. But here's my problem. Obama was very precise in crafting most of his statements on a wide range of issues, so that his supporters could always have a basis for saying, "he didn't mean that, he meant this." If you always want to interpret every one of those statements in the way most favorable to him, fine. I don't. I don't give them all the worst possible interpretation, either. That would put him somewhere between Marx and Lenin if I did.

But I do find it alarming. He (and apparently you too) clearly has a more collectivist world view than do I. We are just not going to see things like this the same way.

It's fine if we don't see things the same way, and I'm not trying to change your opinion on this statement (because I know I can't). However, you are providing me the perfect example of what I was explaining to Tanq previously, that plenty of people interpreted that statement just as you do.

(10-18-2017 08:08 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 07:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yea, it means you didn’t build that. We disagree on what “that” was referring to, which to me, isn’t such an out there scenario. That is why it’s a bit offensive for you to suggest I am spinning it hard when what I am doing is using contextual clues to conclude that he was talking about the American system/infrastructure he spoke about right before he said the line, as opposed to a personal business.

Exactly. I can't believe we are still debating this. Here's the larger context:

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/you-did...-unedited/

He is so clearly meaning evil collectivist ventures like the fire department, the intranet, and the grandaddy of them all, the communist interstate highway system, implemented by Comrade Eisenhower.

I literally couldn't have made my point any better.

(10-18-2017 07:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I do not know one single person who wants to turn back the clock on equality, inclusiveness, or civil rights. What a myth he has swallowed.

You may not *know* personally such people, (I do unfortunately) but you may *know of* such people: Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump for starters. And a whole bunch of other Republican elected officials. It's all well and good for you and Tang and Owl69 to get your knickers in a twist, but the *actual policies* Republicans are implementing and attempting to implement verify my "myth".

Just to take one: LBGTQ rights. Do you have any idea how many protections the Trump admin has already rolled back? Have you seen the things some of the judges he's trying to appoint have said? Now we find out he "jokes" about how Pence "wants to hang" all the gays. Hilarious! I'm sure Matthew Shepherd's mother is laughing her a** off, as are all the other loved ones of gay and trans people who have been beaten and killed in hate crimes against them.

So where are the bills to implement "separate but equal" and reintroduce segregation? Things get rolled back all the time, for example "separate but equal" and segregation. It is part of the adjustment process as our society evolves. We have a wide variety of citizens. I presume you include Pence as wanting to turn back the clock because he is a fundamentalist Christian. Well, they have rights and desires too, they need to be heard in our society just like the LBGTQ group. We should not tell the Christians to STFU.

maybe you need to be more specific in your charges. I find it difficult to refute what is assumed but not said. But as I have said before, many times, I live in a strongly Republican area. I don't hear a whisper about turning back the clock, I don't see any hint of RSMH. Just the opposite. I think all the people here would not want to turn back the clock. Maybe living in a blue area, you hear more about it.. More likely, you just hear about it from the blue people you talk to. "Oh, those horrible red people. Did you hear what they are trying to do now?"

One thing is that I assumed you meant turn back the clock to 1947 or 1875 or 1799. It appears now you mean to turn back to 2010 or so. So clarify that, please.

The roads and bridges are there for anybody and everybody. Some take advantage of them to build businesses. Some don't. In either case, the roads and bridges are there. The ones who use them to build businesses are the ones who built the businesses. If the business owners didn't build them, then what is difference between them and the ones who do nothing with the roads and bridges made available to them?

Hundreds of thousands of people had the opportunity to start a business making cars. Only a few did. The same infrastructure was available to all. Some people are henry Ford, and others are Jack Harris. I wonder why nobody is driving a Harrismobile.

We have a lot of other things that people use to build businesses. We have a democracy, we have education, we have air and water and electricity. The people who build take advantage of what is there, the people who don't build, don't.

One more difference between those who build and those who don't. The builders take risks. They put themselves on the line. The nonbuilders don't. I've never seen a nonbuilder take out a seven figure loan in order to apply for a job.

Some people reach for more, some don't.

(10-18-2017 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 07:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I do not know one single person who wants to turn back the clock on equality, inclusiveness, or civil rights. What a myth he has swallowed.

You may not *know* personally such people, (I do unfortunately) but you may *know of* such people: Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump for starters. And a whole bunch of other Republican elected officials. It's all well and good for you and Tang and Owl69 to get your knickers in a twist, but the *actual policies* Republicans are implementing and attempting to implement verify my "myth".

Just to take one: LBGTQ rights. Do you have any idea how many protections the Trump admin has already rolled back? Have you seen the things some of the judges he's trying to appoint have said? Now we find out he "jokes" about how Pence "wants to hang" all the gays. Hilarious! I'm sure Matthew Shepherd's mother is laughing her a** off, as are all the other loved ones of gay and trans people who have been beaten and killed in hate crimes against them.

So where are the bills to implement "separate but equal" and reintroduce segregation? Things get rolled back all the time, for example "separate but equal" and segregation. It is part of the adjustment process as our society evolves. We have a wide variety of citizens. I presume you include Pence as wanting to turn back the clock because he is a fundamentalist Christian. Well, they have rights and desires too, they need to be heard in our society just like the LBGTQ group. We should not tell the Christians to STFU.

maybe you need to be more specific in your charges. I find it difficult to refute what is assumed but not said. But as I have said before, many times, I live in a strongly Republican area. I don't hear a whisper about turning back the clock, I don't see any hint of RSMH. Just the opposite. I think all the people here would not want to turn back the clock. Maybe living in a blue area, you hear more about it.. More likely, you just hear about it from the blue people you talk to. "Oh, those horrible red people. Did you hear what they are trying to do now?"

One thing is that I assumed you meant turn back the clock to 1947 or 1875 or 1799. It appears now you mean to turn back to 2010 or so. So clarify that, please.

Specifics.

Quote:The Trump administration’s Department of Justice on Wednesday undercut the stance of the Obama administration’s DOJ and another autonomous federal agency, by arguing that an existing law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not bar an employer from firing a gay employee because he or she is gay.

The filing came the same day as President Trump’s announcement that he would bar transgender troops from serving in the military.

http://fortune.com/2017/07/27/trump-depa...imination/

Quote: The executive order revokes key components of the Obama administration's previous executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or identity, gay rights advocates say...

...by revoking the requirement that companies seeking federal contracts prove they've complied with federal laws banning discrimination based on sexual identity or orientation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lgb...em-n740301

(10-18-2017 08:51 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 08:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 07:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 06:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]He was referencing the American system and road and bridges he was talking about before he mentioned the business. It’s pretty clear that he believes in working as a community, and that fits perfectly in line with that belief. That the community funds the American system and infrastructure that is needed for a business to thrive, and individual business owners don’t build that.
That fits with Tanq’s description of the situation as well, that Obama was trying to shake business owners into paying more into the American system/infrastructure that he referenced.
I am not spinning it hard...

I agree that he is trying to shake money out of successful businesses so he can redistribute it to people who will vote for him. Rob Peter to pay Paul, and Paul will vote for you--fundamental principle of democrat politics.
But, "you didn't build that," has a very specific meaning--you didn't build that.
I'm not saying that you personally are a collectivist, but I am saying that Obama is.

Yea, it means you didn’t build that. We disagree on what “that” was referring to, which to me, isn’t such an out there scenario. That is why it’s a bit offensive for you to suggest I am spinning it hard when what I am doing is using contextual clues to conclude that he was talking about the American system/infrastructure he spoke about right before he said the line, as opposed to a personal business.

"if you've got a business, you didn't build that"

OK, I will agree that it is obscure enough in the context that someone could determine that the "that" wasn't the business. But here's my problem. Obama was very precise in crafting most of his statements on a wide range of issues, so that his supporters could always have a basis for saying, "he didn't mean that, he meant this." If you always want to interpret every one of those statements in the way most favorable to him, fine. I don't. I don't give them all the worst possible interpretation, either. That would put him somewhere between Marx and Lenin if I did.

But I do find it alarming. He (and apparently you too) clearly has a more collectivist world view than do I. We are just not going to see things like this the same way.

It's fine if we don't see things the same way, and I'm not trying to change your opinion on this statement (because I know I can't). However, you are providing me the perfect example of what I was explaining to Tanq previously, that plenty of people interpreted that statement just as you do.

What Obama said was "Since the infrastructure was already built, you didnt fully build your business by yourself, you mfing greedy bastards. Give me more of what is collectively *our* rent from your risk for that infrastructure to spread around to those who did not help in any way, shape, or form."

That context is quite clear. The fine art of community organizer slut-shaming.

A kissing cousin to message he delivered to those evil robbers who held the GM debt who had the *temerity* to challenge the GM takeover (yes, takeover) provisions.

(10-18-2017 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 07:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I do not know one single person who wants to turn back the clock on equality, inclusiveness, or civil rights. What a myth he has swallowed.

You may not *know* personally such people, (I do unfortunately) but you may *know of* such people: Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump for starters. And a whole bunch of other Republican elected officials. It's all well and good for you and Tang and Owl69 to get your knickers in a twist, but the *actual policies* Republicans are implementing and attempting to implement verify my "myth".

Just to take one: LBGTQ rights. Do you have any idea how many protections the Trump admin has already rolled back? Have you seen the things some of the judges he's trying to appoint have said? Now we find out he "jokes" about how Pence "wants to hang" all the gays. Hilarious! I'm sure Matthew Shepherd's mother is laughing her a** off, as are all the other loved ones of gay and trans people who have been beaten and killed in hate crimes against them.

So where are the bills to implement "separate but equal" and reintroduce segregation? Things get rolled back all the time, for example "separate but equal" and segregation. It is part of the adjustment process as our society evolves. We have a wide variety of citizens. I presume you include Pence as wanting to turn back the clock because he is a fundamentalist Christian. Well, they have rights and desires too, they need to be heard in our society just like the LBGTQ group. We should not tell the Christians to STFU.

maybe you need to be more specific in your charges. I find it difficult to refute what is assumed but not said. But as I have said before, many times, I live in a strongly Republican area. I don't hear a whisper about turning back the clock, I don't see any hint of RSMH. Just the opposite. I think all the people here would not want to turn back the clock. Maybe living in a blue area, you hear more about it.. More likely, you just hear about it from the blue people you talk to. "Oh, those horrible red people. Did you hear what they are trying to do now?"

One thing is that I assumed you meant turn back the clock to 1947 or 1875 or 1799. It appears now you mean to turn back to 2010 or so. So clarify that, please.

Specifics.

Quote:The Trump administration’s Department of Justice on Wednesday undercut the stance of the Obama administration’s DOJ and another autonomous federal agency, by arguing that an existing law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not bar an employer from firing a gay employee because he or she is gay.

The filing came the same day as President Trump’s announcement that he would bar transgender troops from serving in the military.

http://fortune.com/2017/07/27/trump-depa...imination/

Quote: The executive order revokes key components of the Obama administration's previous executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or identity, gay rights advocates say...

...by revoking the requirement that companies seeking federal contracts prove they've complied with federal laws banning discrimination based on sexual identity or orientation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lgb...em-n740301

I guess I was right - by turn back the clock yall mean to the Obama Administration.

Well, Title IX did not bar an employer from firing an employee because they were gay. If we want the law to read that way, need to pass it that way. Or amend it. Or pass another law.

same for the executive order. It was not law.

Pass the laws and the DOJ will enforce them. As written. Yall have all the Democrats and half the Republicans. Get to work.

Once again, I was thinking turn back the clock was turn it back to 1950, not a couple of years ago. Laws and regulations are always changing. Nothing is set in stone, even minority laws. if they were, we would still have slavery, or separate but equal.

This is the normal back and forth of our system. why the insistence that a law or rule once implemented is not subject to review or debate?

Our "progress" on these matters is like watching a yoyo being spun by a man climbing stairs. We try this and that, we change this and that. In the end it comes down to the american people. In 1957 lots of them wanted to keep segregation. Now very few do. Those few may want to turn back the clock to 1957. But they do not run the GOP.

Wolf!!! Wolf!!!!

(10-18-2017 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 08:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-18-2017 07:51 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-16-2017 09:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I do not know one single person who wants to turn back the clock on equality, inclusiveness, or civil rights. What a myth he has swallowed.

You may not *know* personally such people, (I do unfortunately) but you may *know of* such people: Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump for starters. And a whole bunch of other Republican elected officials. It's all well and good for you and Tang and Owl69 to get your knickers in a twist, but the *actual policies* Republicans are implementing and attempting to implement verify my "myth".

Just to take one: LBGTQ rights. Do you have any idea how many protections the Trump admin has already rolled back? Have you seen the things some of the judges he's trying to appoint have said? Now we find out he "jokes" about how Pence "wants to hang" all the gays. Hilarious! I'm sure Matthew Shepherd's mother is laughing her a** off, as are all the other loved ones of gay and trans people who have been beaten and killed in hate crimes against them.

So where are the bills to implement "separate but equal" and reintroduce segregation? Things get rolled back all the time, for example "separate but equal" and segregation. It is part of the adjustment process as our society evolves. We have a wide variety of citizens. I presume you include Pence as wanting to turn back the clock because he is a fundamentalist Christian. Well, they have rights and desires too, they need to be heard in our society just like the LBGTQ group. We should not tell the Christians to STFU.

maybe you need to be more specific in your charges. I find it difficult to refute what is assumed but not said. But as I have said before, many times, I live in a strongly Republican area. I don't hear a whisper about turning back the clock, I don't see any hint of RSMH. Just the opposite. I think all the people here would not want to turn back the clock. Maybe living in a blue area, you hear more about it.. More likely, you just hear about it from the blue people you talk to. "Oh, those horrible red people. Did you hear what they are trying to do now?"

One thing is that I assumed you meant turn back the clock to 1947 or 1875 or 1799. It appears now you mean to turn back to 2010 or so. So clarify that, please.

Specifics.

Quote:The Trump administration’s Department of Justice on Wednesday undercut the stance of the Obama administration’s DOJ and another autonomous federal agency, by arguing that an existing law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not bar an employer from firing a gay employee because he or she is gay.

The filing came the same day as President Trump’s announcement that he would bar transgender troops from serving in the military.

http://fortune.com/2017/07/27/trump-depa...imination/

Quote: The executive order revokes key components of the Obama administration's previous executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or identity, gay rights advocates say...

...by revoking the requirement that companies seeking federal contracts prove they've complied with federal laws banning discrimination based on sexual identity or orientation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lgb...em-n740301

Do either of you understand the concept of the very specific term of art "protected class" as it pertains to discrimination law, and its role in provided elevated status and protections?

To that end, these types of requirements actually de facto elevate the LGBT into such a 'suspect class', the way the Wisconsin plaintiffs wish for political parties to be elevated to another 'suspect class' in the gerrymandering case.

So yes, evil white pointy hat me, actually agrees with Trump in taking these requirements out.

The question underlying the issue isnt 'are we going to take them out and beat the snot out of them', but under what circumstances are we going to give a group 'elevated and specific' protections that the vast majority don't enjoy. Or do we hand that [stuff] out like lollipops to any group de jour? To be blunt, it is great lollipops for specific groups you want to suck up to, and awesome fodder to point to the evil mfers on the other side who want to question that special giveaway. A win-win, so to speak.

Even more so when the enabling law never even mentions the class, and the lollipop machines are put in for the class not by judicial determination of suspect class, nor even by an act of Congress. But by an executive order. Politics at a whim at its finest.

But I forgot, according to JAAO Democrats would *never* employ such divisive lollipop giveaways and divisive "watch out for the snaggle tooth pointy hat [deplorables] that *dare* question that lollipop that no one else enjoys" issues. So I must be completely off base....

Hate to tell you, but, those types of legal operations and mechanics really dont measure up to the knee jerk 'he's discriminating against LGBTs' by dismantling the lollipop dispenser there, *especially* when crafted out of legal gossamer as this one apparently was.

So if supporting 'taking away a special protection that no one else in the mfing world has' deems one a bigot, especially for a class that has never been designated a suspect class in all its glory in the court system, nor having any enabling legislation for the action, then I guess I am one of those evil white pointy hat [deplorables] the left screams incessantly about. But the faithful will gladly scream "they are turning back the clocks by shutting down the lollipop dispenser" (for a group that was not deemed a protected class by a court, nor was any action in the EO passed by a legislature, might I add again), which I see has happened here.

But hell, why bother with actually looking at the legal structure of something when it cuts across the emotive ring of 'you evil bigot'. Par for the course, I guess. The attempt by Obama to encompass LGBT into Title 9 was an extraordinary stretch that law, actually very unbelievable. But I find it interesting (pretty much grotesque) that the 'evil bigot' argument always seems to trump the 'do it by the rule of of law' argument so very often on the liberal agenda.

But then again, I guess the lesson of stretching DACA by EO where it contravened existing law didnt bother you either? And, I guess the rollback of that was an evil snaggle tooth bigot item, even though it directly contravened existing law and usurped the Constitutional requirement that really only Congress should be able to change that law that it had already passed.

(10-18-2017 09:37 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]This is the normal back and forth of our system. why the insistence that a law or rule once implemented is not subject to review or debate, except for Heller, McDonald, Citizen's United, Hobby Lobby, Wisconsin congressional districts, and mechanics of the electoral college?

FIFY