(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.