House of Eratosthenes

President Obama, one week after his controversial “you didn’t build that” remark, claimed Friday that the criticism he’s taking from Republicans is “bogus.”

Though Republicans say the president was implying that business owners didn’t build their businesses, Obama said he was just talking about roads and bridges.

In an interview with WCTV-TV in Tallahassee that aired Friday, Obama said: “What I said was together we build roads and we build bridges.”

He added: “That’s the point I’ve made millions of times, and by the way, that’s a point Mr. Romney has made as well, so this is just a bogus issue.”

As Charles Krauthammer points out in the clip, it’s completely obvious from watching the original video from a week ago as well as from seeing the statement in print — the President was not talking about building bridges.

If He isn’t out-and-out lying (and it’s difficult to see how a man possessing any intelligence at all would think He could get away with such a fib), then He sure is good at rationalizing. In our elected leaders, is there any practical difference between those two things?

I’m with Rush on this. He either said what he said, or he’s such a poor communicator that he isn’t qualified for the office.
- Daniel | 07/21/2012 @ 10:46
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.
- Zachriel | 07/22/2012 @ 09:21
One of my FB friends posted the “you didn’t build that” with the comment that “this meme is getting old”. It’s never getting old.
- Physics Geek | 07/22/2012 @ 14:31
…but also because we do things together.

I think this is a worthy debate to have. We should have it.

But I’m biased; I think this is a worthy debate to have, because the people who oppose me have positioned themselves as the extremists, an “extremist” being someone whose position cannot be defined without use of the word “always” or “never.” Success is always realized, they say, because we do things “together,” never because an individual took the initiative…or, burned some midnight oil to figure out if something can be done, and if so, how.

I mean, really? That never happened? Everything that ever got built was some kind of committee or neighborhood project?
- mkfreeberg | 07/22/2012 @ 14:54
mkfreeberg: I think this is a worthy debate to have. We should have it.

Sorry, forgot the attribution. The quote was from President Obama in the same speech. He clearly stated that people succeed because of both individual initiative and because they work together.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia
- Zachriel | 07/22/2012 @ 17:57
To the extent that anything gets accomplished by people working “together,” it was because they chose to do so voluntarily, out of a hope of mutual benefit.

That’s not what the president has in mind. He said the same thing that every socialist dictator has – this business about the greater good, working together instead of competing with one another, and so on – naturally with some politician leading that group effort. Him.

“What I said was together we build roads and we build bridges.” We? Together? No, Mr President…some elected officials decided that a road or bridge was needed, so they confiscated some money from the taxpayers, hired some workers, and sent them out to get the job done. That’s all. There’s none of this “community” stuff in that.

Zachariel, your problem is that you’re unable or unwilling to see where this sort of talk ultimately can lead – to the nationalization of all industry and the abolition of private property, all under the model of government forcibly bringing about a spirit of “community” and “working together.” There’s a word for a governmental system like that. Do you know what it is? It begins with a C. Hint – it’s the one that the US spent billions of dollars and fifty years fighting.

Real cooperation and community comes from the bottom up – ordinary people at the lowest levels deciding to start volunteer groups, charities, or better yet, for-profit businesses. All of which are voluntary. None of which need government or any politician (least of all Chairman Zero) lecturing them about innovation or hard work or cooperation.

Take your socialist claptrap someplace else, please. We’ve already all-stocked up on stupid, thanks.
- cylarz | 07/22/2012 @ 22:54
cylarz: That’s not what the president has in mind.

That’s right. He was making a distinction between the individual initiative and collective action through government. This directly contradicts Eratothenes’ point that the President was not talking about bridges. That is exactly what he was talking about.

cylarz: To the extent that anything gets accomplished by people working “together,” it was because they chose to do so voluntarily, out of a hope of mutual benefit.

Turns out many people will cooperate with a government project; for instance, the space program, fighting wars or building the superhighway system.

cylarz: There’s none of this “community” stuff in that.

Sure there is. People get together, have a debate, and vote. They usually act through representatives, but sometimes vote directly.

cylarz: your problem is that you’re unable or unwilling to see where this sort of talk ultimately can lead – to the nationalization of all industry and the abolition of private property, all under the model of government forcibly bringing about a spirit of “community” and “working together.”

We’re quite aware of the slippery slope argument. However, the United States has been voting and acting for the common defence and general welfare for more than 200 years. Power is tentatively balanced, and freedom is always on the edge of a knife.

cylarz: Real cooperation and community comes from the bottom up – ordinary people at the lowest levels deciding to start volunteer groups, charities, or better yet, for-profit businesses. All of which are voluntary.

Yes, modern democratic societies are organized at all levels; legislative, executive, judicial, federal, state, city, county, political parties, corporations, business groups, advocacy groups, clubs, property rights, personal liberties. All these networks vie for power and create a dynamically balanced system.

In any case, the main point was that Obama was certainly talking about infrastructure, as is clear from the context of his speech.
- Zachriel | 07/23/2012 @ 04:35
Krauthammer isn’t out and out lying — but he’s pretty close.

There are no solo acts in American business, nor in any other enterprise. Even the opera diva giving a “solo recital” has a manager who booked the hall, an accompanist, a vocal coach, and composers from the previous 500 years to work with.

Can you give us an example of a businessman who “did it all him/herself?”

Distorting Obama’s words, record, life, and everything else, shows the paucity of Republican and conservative policies and thought, and complete poverty of morality among Obama opponents on that end of the spectrum.
- edarrell | 07/23/2012 @ 05:54
Daniel, speaking of Rush: Have you seen the original of the cartoon used by House of Eratosthenes?

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/we-dont-spend-enough-on-foreign-aid-u-s-should-spend-more/#comment-231387
- edarrell | 07/23/2012 @ 05:55
The problem here is that we’re not comparing the same thing. You two arguing for what the president said are, dare I say, taking his speech out of context – the context of everything else he’s ever said. IF the president was simply talking about a sense of community, then why the speech? Why not just play the last few minutes of a Barney episode and be done with it? It would be a whole lot easier and would require less campaign cash. By those measures, since we all work together happily building successful businesses, and we’ve had many fewer business successes over the past 4 years – well, that’s not a very strong argument for 4 more years.

However, you can’t argue his words in a vacuum. For all of his lack of experience, the one thing he does have plenty of experience in is words, so we can view these words in light of others he’s put forth. The implication is that those who have succeeded have done so through the magnanimous giving of others. Look how many times “gave” appeared in that speech. It wasn’t pro-community, it was anti-earning. Given that a business operates in an above-board manner, every one of these “donors” (to hear Obama describe them) earned some sort of compensation for their efforts. Employees were paid; professional support was obtained or hired, and paid; even the government got paid when the business made money, via taxes. Then, when the business owner finally gets paid, he ends up paying even more to the government.

Sadly, there are some business owners who do not do business in a legal manner. However, structuring a system around making in darn near impossible for that to happen is not a pro-growth structure. Punish the bad guys and move on.

Finally – IF he was talking about roads and bridges, he’s still logically incorrect. What about the guy who builds a successful construction business by contracting with the government to build bridges?
- Daniel | 07/23/2012 @ 06:13
Daniel: IF the president was simply talking about a sense of community, then why the speech?

Because some people claim that there is no need for government.

Daniel: By those measures, since we all work together happily building successful businesses, and we’ve had many fewer business successes over the past 4 years

The global financial system nearly collapsed.

Daniel: Finally – IF he was talking about roads and bridges, he’s still logically incorrect. What about the guy who builds a successful construction business by contracting with the government to build bridges?

You conflate government being important with government being everything. “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
- Zachriel | 07/23/2012 @ 06:20
Oops – forgot the cartoon. Anyone who agrees with another 100% may not lack brains, but they certainly aren’t using them. IMO, Rush tends to be more right than wrong (I mean, come on, he’s a Steelers fan – how much wronger can you be? LOL). The trick is, though, to disagree with what he said AND prove that you’re using your noggin, you have to listen to him. Not the edited/looped sound bites from the media, or the even worse edits from progressive sites – listen to what he says in context.

I listen to Rush (not religiously, but often), and I also watch Real Time from time to time. When I do both activities, I hear thing with which I agree, and things that I don’t. 🙂
- Daniel | 07/23/2012 @ 06:21
In any case, the main point was that Obama was certainly talking about infrastructure, as is clear from the context of his speech.

If that’s the case, then you fail and so does Ed.

The business owners pay taxes just like everybody else. Obama, like Professor Warren before Him, conveniently ignores this. Yes, things are built on top of other things…this entity over here, makes use of something put together by that other entity, over there, the great capitalist system at work. That means, everyone whose hands touched something used by that business, has a claim on having “built that”?

Nonsense, that’s why they were paid off. Everyone was compensated for their contribution, essentially so that the owner or owners of the business could say “I built that.”

Modern liberalism seems to engage in this mindset a lot, I notice: When dollars are paid for a product/service received, or an obligation discharged, progressives tend to revisit the transaction with a feigned ignorance about the dollar-exchange part of it. “They didn’t pay their fair share” or some such…here, the business owners paid the dollars to acquire the services, or their use of the infrastructure, maybe the intellectual property of a software developer…and, somehow, it doesn’t count. Your argument fails if your successful presentation of it, depends on your ability to dictate what bits of reality your opposition is allowed to notice, and what other bits of reality you will prevail upon them to ignore. And the businesses paid for what the businesses used. If you happen to dislike that part of it, that doesn’t make it go away.
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 08:01
“Some people claim there is a need for no government.” Some people claim there is a need for nothing but government too. This is a red herring, and if we can’t agree on that point and discuss the actual content of the speech, we’re not going to get anywhere.

“The global financial system nearly collapsed.” I’d say the collapse is still imminent (the jury’s still out on Greece and Italy), but what caused the collapse? Overextended, unsustainable deficit spending. The solution to the crisis is not more of what got you there; yet that’s exactly what, prior to Obamacare, this president viewed as his signature accomplishment. This guy has seen the collapse, and is still doing the same thing.

I agree that government isn’t everything. There is, however, something to be said for what someone thinks when they are faced with a problem. If they think “There oughta be a law,” they’re viewing government as the solution. If they think “I should make something to fix that,” they’re viewing private business as the solution.

This isn’t a no-government vs. all-government debate; this is a debate over the level of government involvement. With government, you get inefficiency (because anything efficient is going to be perceived as unfair to another group, and the government isn’t allowed to be unfair) and the potential for corruption (which can be enforced via up-to-lethal means). With business, there is still the potential for corruption, but it cannot be enforced; and, their need for making money for their owners and shareholders require efficiency.

So, the way I see it, the best possible solution is a government light enough to render an equal playing field, then get out of the way of progress; but heavy enough to provide the minimum infrastructure necessary for success and root out corruption in the private sector. This is not the solution for which Obama is advocating, and it never will be. They want a government heavy enough to make sure that private-sector corruption never happens, and that renders an equality of outcome regardless of effort.

Only the former of these scenarios is sustainable, and in line with what the framers of our country were trying to build. I tend to believe that they had it right.
- Daniel | 07/23/2012 @ 08:26
Some people claim there is a need for no government.

Bingo. Yet more proof, if any were needed, that leftism is strictly binary — how many times have you heard some version of:

“The right doesn’t believe in government at all.”

Which soon becomes:

“Right wingers don’t want firefighters or police (or roads or bridges) because those involve the eeeeevil government!!1!eleventy.”

Or, to put it another way: The default fallback argument of folks who can effortlessly give you 10,000 words on how nationalizing the healthcare industry is not socialism (and how dare you call Obama a socialist?!) seems to be “any question at all of the proper scope of governmental action is stealth anarchism.”

Which is muddled thinking at best, shamefully dishonest hackery at worst.
- Severian | 07/23/2012 @ 09:09
mkfreeberg: That means, everyone whose hands touched something used by that business, has a claim on having “built that”?

First things first: Obama was referring to common projects such as infrastructure.

Second things second: “The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together” clearly means that individuals and people working together is what makes America successful.

Daniel: I’d say the collapse is still imminent (the jury’s still out on Greece and Italy), but what caused the collapse? Overextended, unsustainable deficit spending.

Most economists put the blame on a bubble in the shadow banking system.

“The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of the crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower.” — Alan Greenspan
- Zachriel | 07/23/2012 @ 09:11
Okay, so you won’t answer the question.

As I’ve pointed out previously: If there is any one person in the country enjoying the accolades of having built something, who would do well to ponder all the efforts provided by mostly-uncredited outsiders, and therefore the talents they brought to the table that this individual doesn’t have, and can’t bring, that person would be President Barack H. Obama.

So it is rather strange and surreal that He’s giving this speech, clearly intending it to apply to “people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart” — who are not Him.

He’s actually describing Himself, more poignantly and more accurately than He’s describing anyone else, when you really read what He had to say.
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 09:17
mkfreeberg: Okay, so you won’t answer the question.

What question? Can’t make sense of the rest of your comment.

Severian: Yet more proof, if any were needed, that leftism is strictly binary

“To the extent that anything gets accomplished by people working ‘together,’ it was because they chose to do so voluntarily, out of a hope of mutual benefit.”

Binary thinking that suggests that governments can never get things accomplished.

“your problem is that you’re unable or unwilling to see where this sort of talk ultimately can lead – to the nationalization of all industry and the abolition of private property, all under the model of government forcibly bringing about a spirit of ‘community’ and ‘working together.’ There’s a word for a governmental system like that. Do you know what it is? It begins with a C.”

Binary thinking that equates just talking about people working together through democratic institutions is the same as communism.

“I agree that government isn’t everything. There is, however, something to be said for what someone thinks when they are faced with a problem. If they think “There oughta be a law,” they’re viewing government as the solution.”

Non-binary thinking that makes a valid argument that government should be considered only after other solutions have been considered.
- Zachriel | 07/23/2012 @ 09:43
If you can’t make sense out of my comment, then how do you know anything about “first things first” and “second things second”?
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 09:46
mkfreeberg: That means, everyone whose hands touched something used by that business, has a claim on having “built that”?

Despite the question mark, that is not a question. (It was your following comment that we couldn’t parse.)

mkfreebert: If you can’t make sense out of my comment, then how do you know anything about “first things first” and “second things second”?

First things first refers to your original post, which was is error. As is clear from context, Obama was talking about community projects such as infrastructure, contrary to your original post.

Second things second refers to this statement:

mkfreeberg: That means, everyone whose hands touched something used by that business, has a claim on having “built that”?

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
- Zachriel | 07/23/2012 @ 09:55
That’s what’s so fascinating about all of you.

If you say something the other side can’t figure out, that means you win.

If the other side says something you can’t figure out…that means you win.

It seems to me that an argument that inspires confidence, would not need to rely on such a dialogue-protocol of complete invulnerability, in order to survive. It also seems to me that a President with such a talented, and some say divine, grasp of the nuances of verbal communication, should not be so casually touching off this frenzied maelstrom of “What Pres. Obama really meant to say was.”

Having trouble parsing that?
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 10:05
Having trouble parsing that?

Heh. Good luck with that, amigo — I seem to remember 400+ posts of elaborate mis-parsing and point-dodging.

Lewis Carroll nailed these clowns over 100 years ago:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
- Severian | 07/23/2012 @ 11:00
What Ed and Zachariel fail to grasp:

The president was not talking about a need for infrastructure in the first place. There would at least be a case to be made for that.

He was talking about the need for more stimulus…e.g. failed projects like Solyandra. He wants to give more cash to his union buddies and to his base who work in the “green” energy industry. I guess the billion or so that Soly lost already wasn’t good enough, so we need to throw more money at it and hope it works.

Instead of…allowing more oil drilling on federal land, lowering taxes, freezing federal spending, and putting a moratorium on any more business regulations.

This thread isn’t going to run for 400+ posts while the Zachariel go around and around and around with the sensible-thinking people, is it?
- cylarz | 07/23/2012 @ 11:17
Ed and Z seem pretty sure they’ve got the right idea, Cylarz.

As always seems to be the case…
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 11:40
[…] Does She?” These Hands Questions for Liberals Everything I Need to Know I Learned From Batman “What I Said Was Together We Build Roads and We Build Bridges” “I Built This!” The “Underlying Social Contract” You-Didn’t-Build-ism […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 07/23/2012 @ 11:59
This is the classic left-wing strawman. Assert that conservatives hate government, that they are against all government, that they think no government at all is preferable. (NO. We want limited government. The fact that left wingers refuse to acknowledge this is why I say they’re dishonest people.)

Next, name off some classic functions of government that no one thinks are truly controversial – public schools, roads, police and fire protection (all of which are almost entirely the province of local governments, not the federal one), or if you do want a noncontroverisal federal program, pick on conservatives’ favorite: the military.

Claim that since conservatives “hate government,” they must be against safe roads, schools, food safety, and fire protection.

Finally, champion yourself and your ilk as the protectors of safe roads and bridges by talking about the need to grow government spending and control. When in reality you aren’t talking about noncontroversial programs like road construction and safe bridges…you actually mean more controversial ones like an unwanted takeover of the healthcare system or spending another billion taxpayer dollars to prop up a failing solar energy company. By equating the two things, you portray conservatives – who again, want LIMITED government as indicated in the Constitution, not NO goverment entirely – as big ol meanies.

I despise the disgusting methods the Left must resort to in order to win elections. What would be wrong with arguing in good faith. No no, never mind. I already know the answer to that. They’d lose.

This sort of thing wouldn’t be a big deal if it were just done by nobodies like the Zachariel. What’s distressing is that we continually here this sort of deceptive language from Democrats who hold actual power…particularly since one of them was Speaker of the House until fairly recently and another is currently President of these here United States.
- cylarz | 07/23/2012 @ 12:20
If this one doesn’t go 400+, I’m taking complete credit, since I wasn’t part of the one that did! LOL

Actually, I didn’t do that myself. The people who stopped arguing back made that happen.
- Daniel | 07/23/2012 @ 12:22
mkfreeberg: It seems to me that an argument that inspires confidence, would not need to rely on such a dialogue-protocol of complete invulnerability, in order to survive.

“dialogue-protocol of complete invulnerability”?

mkfreeberg: It also seems to me that a President with such a talented, and some say divine, grasp of the nuances of verbal communication, should not be so casually touching off this frenzied maelstrom of “What Pres. Obama really meant to say was.”

Regardless, it is clear from context that your original comment that “the President was not talking about building bridges” was incorrect.

cylarz: We want limited government.

Okay. You had seemed to suggest otherwise. So you agree that people working together through democratic institutions can sometimes accomplish some things of mutual benefit.
- Zachriel | 07/23/2012 @ 13:04
Once again, it seems if you fail to understand the other side, you get to declare victory…because of your (collective) lack of reading comprehension skills. If that is what you are suggesting, you’ll have to explain how that works. If not, you should probably clarify what it is you are trying to say — while conceding the point that, at times, you are no easier to understand than other people.

Regardless, it is clear from context that your original comment that “the President was not talking about building bridges” was incorrect.

It is clear to you, and perhaps other people who are wrong.

Perhaps Boortz can nail this thing shut in terms so plain, there is no mistaking the logic, the durability thereof, or the intended meaning:

…as I pointed out last week, “roads and bridges” aren’t a “that.” They’re a “those.” If Obama was directing his comments to the roads and bridges he would have said “you didn’t build those.” Obama is, they say, the smartest man ever to hold the office, so certainly he can handle simple grammar.

And, in my opinion, He can handle grammar at this level, and I contend that He did correctly handle it. He was talking about the “that” — the business.

You didn’t build that. There really isn’t any ambiguity. Except, like Cylarz said, if you argued in good faith…you’d lose.
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 13:18
It’s actually pretty simple to test if someone is arguing in good faith: Will they admit the possibility that they might be wrong?

For instance, ask any Obama defender if the man has ever done anything wrong. Not “insufficiently leftist” or “not to my taste,” but actually wrong. It doesn’t matter what it is — great or small, major policy move or minor gaffe — liberals will always say that he was misquoted, or taken out of context, or stymied by the simultaneously dunderheaded-yet-diabolically-clever congressional GOP leadership (yes, they’ll even go there — the smartest man ever to occupy the Oval Office, outwitted by the likes of Lisa Murkowski).

Hell, you can go one better, and ask them if he’s ever done anything that just plain didn’t work out. Like, say, Cash for Clunkers — would any of them be willing to go on record saying that it was well-intentioned, but just didn’t go down the way they thought it would?

To ask is to answer. As we saw during the Great Global Warming Discussion, doubt isn’t part of the equation — this or that will happen, because, of course, the science is settled.
- Severian | 07/23/2012 @ 14:07
Obama: 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.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

mkfreeberg: You didn’t build that. There really isn’t any ambiguity.

That’s right. There’s no way to read that in any sensible context without acknowledging that he was referring to infrastructure that is built by people working together through government. Your interpretation simply isn’t consistent with what the President said in context.

Of course, someone could simply ask the President what he meant.
- Zachriel | 07/23/2012 @ 15:45
“…gave…” “…allowed you to…” Do you really not see the condescension in those words? The “you didn’t do that” even if we grant that “that” in that one sentence was roads and bridges?

Notwithstanding the factual inaccuracy of what he said. The Internet was invented by the Department of Defense to further our national defense, not so that companies could make money off of it. (Ironically, the one department he actually wants to cut.) And, fire fighting is a red herring. Show me a conservative who doesn’t think we should have a fire departments – heck, even libertarians have that on their “things that government should do” list.

Someone could ask him what he meant (and, BTW, “president” is not capitalized unless you’re using it with his name), but should we have to? I thought he was the Great Orator! Besides, I disagree with all possible interpretations, so I can safely say that I disagree with it.

This “people working together” stuff is also bunk. When you “work together” to clean up a school yard, that’s a whole different activity. Government collects money from its citizens and uses that money to acquire what it wants. We may have financed the infrastructure through our taxable successes, but we did not work together to make that happen.
- Daniel | 07/23/2012 @ 16:50
(my apologies for the number agreement issues in the above post – I reworded it a couple of times and missed a few…)
- Daniel | 07/23/2012 @ 16:52
I’m wondering if The Zachriel can rattle off the names of a few people who have put their reputations by the idea that everyone should have their own fire department. Is this something currently working its way through the House of Representatives, or some state legislature? Perhaps a petition process?

Let’s see, that makes Cylarz, Daniel and now me, the three of us have each made the point that this seems to be a straw man argument and nothing more. Can you provide a rebuttal? Maybe link to a NOAA graphic a few dozen times that sets it all straight?
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 17:14
Obama: If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.

Daniel: “…gave…” “…allowed you to…” Do you really not see the condescension in those words?

The example of a great teacher giving someone some help? Not sure why that would be condescension.

Daniel: The “you didn’t do that” even if we grant that “that” in that one sentence was roads and bridges?

Grant it, because it’s true.

Daniel: This “people working together” stuff is also bunk. When you “work together” to clean up a school yard, that’s a whole different activity. Government collects money from its citizens and uses that money to acquire what it wants.

The constitution, which authorizes the U.S. government to collect taxes, starts with “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union”. Condescension?

mkfreeberg: I’m wondering if The Zachriel can rattle off the names of a few people who have put their reputations by the idea that everyone should have their own fire department.

Obama used it as an example *because* most people agree with publicly supported fire departments.
- Zachriel | 07/23/2012 @ 17:59
Obama used it as an example *because* most people agree with publicly supported fire departments.

Right. So it’s a textbook case of straw man fallacy. Not the first time America’s First Holy Pharoah has gone there, in fact it seems He has an unhealthy addiction to this brand of rhetorical claptrap.

Grant it, because it’s true.

As Boortz has demonstrated, it is not true.

Saying it’s true multiple times, doesn’t make it true, when it isn’t. Linking to an image file won’t help either.
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 19:47
Paging Buckley…

- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 19:53
The teacher rendered help because they were paid to do so. It was not given, it was bought and paid for by the parents, doubly so if it came from a private school.

Morgan – not to quibble, but I think this is a red herring, not a straw man. I could be swayed, though… 🙂
- Daniel | 07/23/2012 @ 20:01
Seems to fall under this rather neatly. “I’m opposed to government managing fire departments” would be the “Position Y.”

Am I missing something?
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 20:20
Nope – you’re not. It appears I was misremembering the split between the two. Gracias, mea culpa, yada yada yada…
- Daniel | 07/23/2012 @ 20:24
Oh, okay. These fallacy-lists are usually solid but occasionally become rather sloppy and goopy…at times, I don’t think anyone has a real good handle on ’em.
- mkfreeberg | 07/23/2012 @ 20:25
The slipperyness of logical fallacy lists is a pretty good stand-in for what’s wrong with political debate in general. Originally, these lists were designed to help orators spot the weaknesses in their own positions. Then the original Sophists started using them as how-to guides, and modern liberalism was born. 🙂

But since we’re on about fire departments and such, maybe we can use them to explore the limits — if any– of the liberal vision of government. For instance, fire departments are superficially problematic to the strict-conservative notion of limited government. After all, we authorize firemen to kick in doors, destroy property, inspect private property (and issue fines for noncompliance), etc., all in the interests of “public safety,” a nebulous, ripe-for-abuse concept if ever there was one (paging Maxmillien Robespierre)…..

But liberals never make those arguments, do they? Instead they make moral arguments — wingnuts would let children and puppies burn if it meant they didn’t have to pay their taxes. (Libertarian version: wingnuts would imperil puppies and children to enrich their buddies in the private fire companies).

So now the question becomes: Why do we only empower fire departments to do those things? Or, more precisely, why only those things? After all, there’s no hard, logical limit to what a concept like “fire safety” entails. If Mike Bloomberg can ban 16-oz sodas in the interests of public health, why can’t we outlaw candles and incense as the obvious fire hazards they are? Why not mandate a fire extinguisher on the wall every three feet in every building in America? Why aren’t there classes and licenses needed to use a backyard grill, or a kitchen stove? Why are we still allowed to have books in our homes?

If liberals have an honest, principled answer to any of that, I haven’t heard it. They don’t even have a legal leg to stand on anymore — we’ll just put a tax on not having a fire extinguisher in every room in the house. The only effective check on the power of the fire department appears to be that they haven’t managed to elect a politician sufficiently “progressive” on fire safety.
- Severian | 07/24/2012 @ 04:51
mkfreeberg: So it’s a textbook case of straw man fallacy.

No. Obama used it as an example because it was something nearly everyone agrees on, including most conservatives. It’s a textbook case of arguing from common ground.

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 05:02
Right, He argued as if in opposition to a viewpoint that doesn’t really exist; the logical opposite to the viewpoint you say “nearly everyone agrees on, including most conservatives.” He made Himself look more reasonable than He really is, by casting Himself in opposition to an opinion that is not being seriously offered by anyone.

So it’s a textbook case of straw man fallacy.

Block copying skillz, I has ’em too.
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2012 @ 05:15
mkfreeberg: So it’s a textbook case of straw man fallacy.

Speaking of fallacies, it’s called quote-mining. If you listen to the speech it’s quite obvious he is reminding people that “when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together”, such as putting out fires. It’s a standard argument, and certainly not a strawman. Indeed, that is how you normally construct a valid and persuasive argument—by building on commonalities.

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

There is no way to view Obama’s speech and reasonably or fairly come to your conclusion.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 06:38
“a valid and persuasive argument” Argument – against what, exactly?
- Daniel | 07/24/2012 @ 07:08
Daniel: Argument – against what, exactly?

Argument for. You never read or watched the speech did you?

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

We could talk about the picture Obama is drawing, but he certainly isn’t saying what the original post suggested.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 07:23
There is no way to view Obama’s speech and reasonably or fairly come to your conclusion.

Actually, there’s no way to read it, with a decent level and quality of attention, and come to yours.

Boortz again (link above): “…as I pointed out last week, “roads and bridges” aren’t a ‘that.’ They’re a ‘those.’ If Obama was directing his comments to the roads and bridges he would have said ‘you didn’t build those.'”

Now you could say, in the run-up to this one statement that got all this attention, Obama also said…

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…

The “that,” therefore, would be “this unbelievable American system” and not the roads/bridges, which would take care of Boortz’ grammatical quibble. But, new problem: That makes no sense at all. Read back further…

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…

So if the “that” is “this unbelievable American system” then, we’ve got all these successful people out there who think, well, it’s because they were so smart…so…they need President Obama to remind them, they “didn’t built that” — this “great American system”? Their success at their business, got them all drunk on their good fortune so they began to think…they were responsible for building this “great American system” full of “roads and bridges”? So they need this “teacher” to tell them otherwise?

The only way that can possibly make sense, is if you’re talking about a successful businessman who started a business — that actually does build roads and bridges. And if that is the context, then the President is simply wrong. Because that would mean they did build that.

There is no way to view Obama’s speech and reasonably or fairly come to your conclusion.
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2012 @ 08:05
And now, I think, we should just cut to the chase.

Modern liberalism, as aptly represented by our current President is — among many other things — fear. It is the fear felt by vast collectives of mediocre individuals, who have not achieved remarkable things on their own for a very long time…although, many among them might have the potential to do exactly that, but they haven’t been doing it. It is the fear felt by those who realize all their successes in life, in group environments, in group-think.

They do not do much of anything at all on their own. And so, they do not want anybody else doing that either. As I’ve said many times, an Architect in the Architect/Medicator paradigm doesn’t care very much how many other Architects there are, but a Medicator wants everyone else to be a Medicator. All Architects must convert, or die.

That is what President Obama’s speech was all about. It is the same attack upon the individual, and individual achievement, that the modern liberals have been making since the 1930’s, and before. It is the desire to diminish human dignity. Literally, it is anti-human. Liberals want us to breed like cattle and work like insects.

Otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to be so enthused about the idea “We aren’t capable of doing noteworthy or remarkable things on our own.” Nevermind whether it’s true or not, there’s something wrong with people becoming excited, in a positive way, over such a notion.
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2012 @ 08:14
mkfreeberg: There is no way to view Obama’s speech and reasonably or fairly come to your conclusion.

Any fair reading of context is that Obama meant you didn’t build that alone.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 08:19
Any fair reading of context is that Obama meant you didn’t build that alone.

The fair reading of it I just gave it, did conclude that Obama meant exactly that — plus a whole bunch of other things that are problematic, to say the least.

He’s got a head full of bad ideas, and it turns out that politically, He isn’t that bright. He’s in trouble for this remark because He revealed too much. Just another “I just think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” moment.
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2012 @ 08:40
Zachriel: Speaking of fallacies, it’s called quote-mining. If you listen to the speech it’s quite obvious he is reminding people that “when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together”, such as putting out fires.

Speaking of fallacies, there’s also projection – what I like to call the Mirror Principle – “Usually the first thing the left accuses you of is the first thing that would occur to them to do if they were in your shoes.”

I went back and counted, and you have used the “individual initiative/also do things together” quote 9 times… including twice in one comment… and the first time without attribution.

It seems to me as if this quote is this thread’s version of that .gif you kept linking, or maybe “3°-5°C in the upper range.” You just repeat it mechanically as if it proves your point, instead of being the point of contention.
- nightfly | 07/24/2012 @ 08:44
nightfly: You just repeat it mechanically as if it proves your point, instead of being the point of contention.

Just to be clear, we are the only one who pointed to context for the first two days of the discussion. And no one has bothered to explain how the context is consistent with the original post’s interpretation.

“The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 09:00
Then how come 50% of “us” that aren’t paying taxes, and are “entitled” to welfare, aren’t FORCED under the same threats to extract taxes, to labor building roads/bridges, clean/maintain the classrooms/fire engines, policing “welfare” fraud, and otherwise supporting the “infrastructure”.
I decree THAT is a “fair” share.

“Some people believe in no government.”
And yet, they are free to bow out…for a cost
And they don’t “vote” themselves “shares” to the fruits of other peoples “community” labor.

Of course, this all depends what the context of what is meant by “is”.
- CaptDMO | 07/24/2012 @ 09:05
Just to be clear, we are the only one who pointed to context for the first two days of the discussion. And no one has bothered to explain how the context is consistent with the original post’s interpretation.

You (all) must have missed it, but I put up a link to our previous post where we examined the context in some detail.

Maybe I need to put it up nine times or something?
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2012 @ 09:12
mkfreeberg: You (all) must have missed it, but I put up a link to our previous post where we examined the context in some detail.

That post doesn’t relate to the point at issue. That argument might have merit, but this post stated that “the President was not talking about building bridges”, when he clearly was referring to infrastructure and all the various things that people build together.

CaptDMO: Then how come 50% of “us” that aren’t paying taxes, and are “entitled” to welfare, aren’t FORCED under the same threats to extract taxes, to labor building roads/bridges, clean/maintain the classrooms/fire engines, policing “welfare” fraud, and otherwise supporting the “infrastructure”.

50% aren’t paying taxes, or not paying federal income taxes?
50% on welfare?
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 09:59
Of course the “context” is consistent with the way we’ve interpreted it. Obama was giving a list of things that, in his mind, were collective efforts: education, the American system, infrastructure, business, the Internet. The problem is, business doesn’t fit in with that list, which was why Obama then added: “You didn’t build that” at that point – let him be clear and make no mistake – he thinks of business as the same as infrastructure, and meant to make certain his audience knew it. Then he dressed it at the very end with your ten-times-used quote… which I will use here with added emphases to highlight the important parts:

“The point is, is that when WE SUCCEED, we succeed BECAUSE OF our INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE, BUT also because WE DO THINGS TOGETHER.”

IOW, sure, an individual makes a decision, takes an initiative, but then WE experience success (not just the individiuals) because the things that are decided on are DONE TOGETHER. This is collectivist and has nothing to do with a person building a business. It is, in fact, a terrific description of the world President Community Organizer knows: a Person In Charge sends forth the word from on high, and it is obeyed by a group below, and that is success.

In business it never works that way. Coca-Cola wasn’t a directive of the National Soft-Drinks and Amalgamated Pharmaceutical Products Authority, Elixirs and Nostrums Division. It started with one person using a mixture he invented. People bought it because it tasted good, not because some 19th-century Bloomberg ordered them to (but only in small sizes). He hired others to make more of it, and eventually bottle it, and help him advertise and sell and distribute and etc etc. All of those people joined on their own. It started from the bottom, not the top, and any collaboration took place because other people believed in the product and the business model and invested their own time and money in it.

Success for us? Well, if you’re in the Coca-Cola manufacturing, bottling, distributing, and selling business. Otherwise, no – it’s not WE SUCCEEDED… it’s THEY SUCCEEDED. We succeed at our own ventures, by offering a service or a product, or somehow participating in same. Or we don’t venture at all, and don’t succeed. It turns out that all the common and shared means Obama listed are necessary, but not sufficient, for success – the individual bit that he pooh-poohs is actually the entire point, the vital pivot of the levers of success.

Sure, I drive over a bridge to get to my job… what product does that bridge provide? It’s not even a toll road. And if it is, do those tolls turn a profit for the authority, or do they barely offset the cost of having the toll authority in the first place, much less pay for the repairs and improvements?

And THAT is the difference between business and the other things on Obama’s list. Businesses create value – everything else on that list requires upkeep and produces no direct value of their own. They are all means. Since they are all shared means, all agree to fund them through taxation. Without them, sure, the means-producers would have a much more difficult time – until they decided to build private roads or railroads, or a networked computer system, or invent something like the telegraph or wireless radio or telephones (all private enterprises). Here’s one such example of such a private system becoming the standard for an entire slew of industries.

Now, you’ll notice one other thing (or, I hope you will). To wit: those means that provide common value and therefore common funding through taxation? They are not under threat because of the top earners not paying “their fair share.” They pay far more as it is. Those common things that require common funding are in fact not being funded by nearly half the population. In terms of raw dollars, it’s maybe not the biggest deal in the world, but in terms of helping people to forget that they’re a part of this WE that needs to succeed? Yeah, in those terms it works all too well. They feel all of the entitlement and none of the responsibility, to the point where a large swath of the citizenry feels entitled to all of things beyond those common and shared means – and that is precisely the swath Obama is appealing to by conflating business with infrastructure.

It was completely intentional, and we have not misunderstood him. You haven’t either, but you’re trying to make it seem as if he didn’t say and mean what he actually said. Makes all y’all just as dishonest as he is.
- nightfly | 07/24/2012 @ 10:44
nightfly: Those common things that require common funding are in fact not being funded by nearly half the population.

Are you saying that half the population is not paying taxes?

“Our goal isn’t just to put people back to work — although that’s priority number one — it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded.”
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 10:53
nightfly: Sure, I drive over a bridge to get to my job… what product does that bridge provide?

A continuous flat surface between your point of departure and your destination.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 11:09
Zachariel: Are you saying that half the population is not paying taxes?

Actually, yes:

http://dmarron.com/2011/07/27/why-do-half-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax/

and

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/19/chart-of-the-week-nearly-half-of-all-americans-dont-pay-income-taxes/
- cylarz | 07/24/2012 @ 11:23
Oh, and this one from USA Today, hardly a bastion of right-wing thinking:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-10-06/income-tax-nonpayment/50676912/1
- cylarz | 07/24/2012 @ 11:29
nightfly – the bridge also provides a cover for the people who lose their homes because they lost their jobs because their government didn’t have a clue how private enterprise enables it, not the other way around. Hooray for bridges!
- Daniel | 07/24/2012 @ 11:43
cylarz: Oh, and this one from USA Today, hardly a bastion of right-wing thinking

That just include federal income tax, and that’s with Bush tax cuts.

If you include all federal taxes, then all but the lowest earners are sharing in the tax burden. From CBO (income is sum of market income government transfers, taxes are the sum of personal and corporate income tax, payroll and excise taxes)
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ShareBeforeTax.jpg
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43373-06-11-HouseholdIncomeandFedTaxes.pdf

Plus most people pay local taxes, such as sales or property taxes.
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 11:48
Plus most people pay local taxes, such as sales or property taxes.

No kidding. You asked if someone was saying that nearly half of people don’t pay taxes. If you restrict the question to federal income tax, then yes, that’s correct. To my knowledge, nobody has made this claim if other taxes are included.

Bush’s tax cuts actually made the system more progressive, which is why it rings hollow when I hear the Left complaining about “tax cuts for the rich.”
- cylarz | 07/24/2012 @ 12:02
Is there some compelling reason why the social insurance taxes should be factored into such a computation?
- mkfreeberg | 07/24/2012 @ 12:03
cylarz: You asked if someone was saying that nearly half of people don’t pay taxes.

From above: “Then how come 50% of ‘us’ that aren’t paying taxes”

mkfreeberg: Is there some compelling reason why the social insurance taxes should be factored into such a computation?

Because payroll tax surpluses have been used to help cover deficits from underfunding from the income tax. And certainly corporate and excise taxes should be included. In any case, this CBO chart shows not just taxes, but income transfers including social security and medicare.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ShareBeforeTax.jpg
- Zachriel | 07/24/2012 @ 13:46
[…] point. The whole point. The Zachriel provides it, for our edification, at 07/22/2012, 09:21… The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 07/25/2012 @ 13:23
Lewis Black, Back in Black
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/lewis-black-takes-apart-dishonest-campaign
- Zachriel | 07/26/2012 @ 06:31
It looks more and more like the Gilchrists were not actually given anything. Loans “somewhere south of” half a million (less than what Black said), presumably paid back, and sub-contracts from the Navy, presumably fulfilled.

I’m seeing a very unsettling pattern in this defense of Obama, and with these other presentations of stealth socialism: An insistence on evaluating past transactions from only one side, to wit: It somehow matters that “somebody else made that happen” — which is called “the point,” a summary you’ve pasted and re-pasted repeatedly, and so, it seems, that part of it is important. How it’s important, is unstated. But the fact that all these other people were fairly compensated for building those on-ramps, and bridges, and hanging those traffic lights…that is not so important, even though it is the other side of the same set of transactions.

It seems to me that the pitch is, it’s okay to to blend some capitalism with some socialism, and run our whole economic society on the mess that results. Granting that there might be some truth to this — and, for the record, I don’t, because fine wine mixed with sewage is sewage — it seems to me the acid test is, “In this new potpourri economic system, if you are indebted to someone for their manual labors and other services, can you fulfill this debt by turning over an agreed-upon amount of legal tender to them in compensation?” And, it seems the answer to that, is: Maybe you could before, but we’ll fix that! Because once they help you build your business, they have equity in it no matter what.

That is not building a new economy, that’s destroying an old one.

More here.
- mkfreeberg | 07/26/2012 @ 07:36
Jon Stewart on context
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jon-stewart-rips-fox-and-romney-out-contex
- Zachriel | 07/26/2012 @ 10:24

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

“What I Said Was Together We Build Roads and We Build Bridges”Saturday, July 21st, 2012

“What I Said Was Together We Build Roads and We Build Bridges”
Saturday, July 21st, 2012