Of course no one can tell what his "meaning" was except BHO- only he knows what he was thinking and why he used the words he chose to best pass along his idea. This is language- it's imperfect. However people will think they understand what idea the speaker is attempting to pass along. Your interpretation is just that- your interpretation. It appears a large number of people do not agree with your interpretation. That does not mean your view or their view are invalid. To most people which dislike BHO he was saying what the posted video says- to the student, to the small business owner, to the larger business community, to our society. That interpretation is consistent with his underlying "redistribution of wealth" viewpoint which is so common in his speech. It's the interpretation of the listener which shows the "kernel of truth" which you say is not there. The video is not funny to you- but it certainly is to many. The thing I see differently between this and the "stench" is that this is a viewpoint of the politician himself- not a derogatory name or label. I see little difference in bumper stickers saying "stench/ryan" and calling BHO a hateful term. Do you think "stench" is a hateful/derogatory term? Do you think hateful/derogatory terms should be used?

You failed to highlight the most important sentence:



The clip makes fun of this sentence. Nothing about the clip is distorted if you simply refer back to this sentence.

It absolutely makes fun of this sentence and this sentence absolutely did happen.

NOTE-
I edited my post and reposted it so folks will see what I wrote immediately AFTER this post.


BHO's subject of that portion of the speech was business owners and the business they've created- and that's who he was speaking about/to in a very large number of people- and as I said that is totally consistent with his philosophy of wealth redistribution. Your interpretation is not consistent with his long standing message.

I highlighted the part that illustrated the point I was trying to make. Seems like a fairly standard use of highlighting to me. You might not like my use of highlighting, but it is better than your method in which you delete the portion you want us to ignore. Good grief. You consider that fair?

For the thousandth time, here is what he said:The phrase "you didn't build that" refers to roads and bridges. The video in the OP attempts to make fun of a completely different statement. That's why it's not funny.

I highlighted the relevant part of the sentence. You chose to ignore the relevant part of the sentence.

Now, that's an interesting interpretation of what he said. Personally, I never read into that statement that he was referring to roads and bridges. My conclusion is that he was simply referring to the business.

I suppose the interpretation of the original statement makes the clip funny...........or not.

I have no problem with people trying to make the point that Obama favors redistribution of wealth, but this video does it dishonestly.

As to whether Obama really does favor redistribution of wealth, I say of course he does. They all do - Romney sure as **** does. If I could tolerate reading Ron Paul's materials, I bet I would find that he does as well. It is unavoidable.I don't see the video and the stench thing as similar at all. The video attempts to criticize a policy position allegedly held by Obama. The stench thing as used on the bumper sticker is much more personal. Even though I am the one who suggested the bumper sticker, I would not want to see them is actual use, although I do think it is funny.

What are you talking about? I'm the one who gave the full quote. You deleted whole sentences. And you say that I "chose to ignore the relevant part"?

Here it is again:Your interpretation is unreasonable. In fact, I would be surprised if you disagree with Obama's overall point that people would have a hard time building businesses if we didn't have infrastructure. If you read the whole paragraph that I quoted, it is obvious that he is talking about infrastructure. You reach into the middle of his statement, pull out some words that support your point and then attempt to say that's what Obama meant. It's not fair.

I wish I knew what that meant. I don't see anything in Obama's background that supports your description of him.

FOLKS! SURELY we are all smart enough to understand: "If you've got a business - you didn't build that." This is all one exclusive sentence.

The blindness caused by B.O. zealousness is ABSOLUTELY AMAZING!

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

MORE blind zealousness. This has been B.O.'s philosophy since his "enthusiastic" drug use days.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

It's right out of his past following with Marxism/Communism under Frank Davis, all the hard left prof's in college.

I call you out with too much BS-

"There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

He was clearly talking about business owners to non business owners (who assumed the business owners were rich and did not pay enough taxes) and how he believes others have had a hand in the success of the business- teachers have had a hand- the american system had a hand- the government had a hand (by "investing" in roads and bridges.) Why on earth would an otherwise intelligent person say roads and bridges were "invested" by the government ... and then say they were not built by the business man?

Make zero sense- even Elchivito does not take your view- "His point that most successful people owe their success at least in part to others and sometimes even to a government leg-up is hardly revolutionary."


I did not create the thread to rehash this - but instead to compare a "funny" video about policy views to a "funny" derogatory/hateful term applied to a person which you supported.

This is what I am talking about.

Here's a rhetorical question: Does anyone think it is fair to take a sentence out of the middle of a speaker's statement and say that he should be held to the apparent meaning of that sentence, without regard to the full context? Is that fair?

Here's another rhetorical question: If Obama believes that people don't build their own businesses and that it's really the government that build them, how in the **** has someone that delusional made it as far in life as he has?

More spin BS: BHO's long standing underlying message of wealth redistribution is clear and well known. Now you are just hiding and lying.

Delusion and positions of high power are certainly not mutually exclusive by any means (quite the opposite); is it your contention they are? What BS you weave.