No doubt about that.

I beg your pardon. I thought that's what you were saying about Obama.I understand that. You've been clear on that all along. In fact, I don't know anyone who thinks otherwise.

I have no idea.Depends on the business. My guess is that his supporters prefer a tax structure like the one we had in the 1990s, when the economy was strong. That's Obama's position, so I'm guessing that his supporters agree with it. Among other things, many in that crowd probably appreciate the tax cut Obama gave them a few years ago. TPC Tax Topics | Conference Stimulus - Making Work Pay Tax CreditI mostly agree with you on that point, although both concepts are part of the same message. One reason we need to change the way we distribute wealth is so we can prevent our infrastructure from falling into further disrepair.I disagree.Really? How so?

I know someone.............



p.s.: You basically ignored post #44 because you don't have a good comeback for it. Game over.

Finally.

I suppose all communication can be seen from the perspective of ideology. That doesn’t make it an absolute or central truth.

I agree completely with the President. I own 2 businesses. One has been going for over 24 years and the other is in its 4th year. Both are very successful by any typical measurement.

I could not do what I do, or earn the living I do, or employ those that I employ, unless there was a developed infrastructure upon which to build. Quite literally the taxes we pay creates the means that makes success possible. The same is true of every company in at least the USA. Without roads, schools, air ports, deep water shipping docks, public utilities, police, fire departments, road maintenance, etc., etc., no business could do what it does. The same is true of employees who could not transport themselves to work without the infrastructure in place.

Could Mercedes succeed if there were not roads, airports, shipping docks, and much more public infrastructure? No. Could any person on this forum do what they do without the existing and future infrastructure used to maintain it? The answer is no. O’s comment is a self-evident truth.

Also, as an aside, Honus has by far the best debate skills on this forum. He has greater patience and tolerance than many commenters here deserve. He can and does rationally counter any point, as well as agree when he does. Just about anyone from any political persuasion could learn a lot from this guy’s skills.

Unfortunately, you missed the argument.

There was no argument whether the infrastructure is necessary for a successful business. That was agreed in several places on the thread.

Where the disagreement occurs is whether Obama was referring to the infrastructure in his famous quote.

MTU provided ample evidence in other statements by Obama that he was not referring to the "roads" when he made the statement, "If you've got a business---you didn't build that".

I offered the quote by Obama where he stopped short because he almost got caught out:

"They know they didn't..........."


These points show clearly that Obama was not specifically referring to the infrastructure.

But, thanks for posting. At least Honus has one individual on here who wishes to avoid the truth about Obama.

> These points show clearly that Obama was not specifically referring to the infrastructure.

In the ideologically slanted opinion of some.

> But, thanks for posting.

I know the truth hurts. Running away from it with an offhand and inaccurate comment isn't going to make it all better................

Whp paid for that infrastructure, only poor people?

....

> Whp?

Why do you ask the question, I mean aside from the typo?

We need a "Truth in Parody" Law.

Whp?

Yeah, a typo. That's a big deal to you. Got it.