Posts Tagged ‘plural’

Obama’s ‘What I Said Was That We Need To Stand Behind Businesses’ Strangely Different From His Actual Words: ‘If You’ve Got A Business, You Didn’t Build That’

July 26, 2012

Obama’s having a problem: he is kicking his very own ass.  He keeps talking and talking and he can’t shut up.

He’s now trying to do everything he can to scrub the factual record and say that he didn’t say what he actually very clearly said.

His latest foot-in-mouth disease moment should put the kibosh on this Marxist ever coming close to a second term – with the now famous words:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — 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. (Applause.)

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.

We’re now being told that Obama was referring not to businesses, silly, but to roads and bridges.

But a basic understanding of the English language pretty much rules that out:

The [Obama] Team then explains: “The President’s full remarks show that the ‘that’ in ‘you didn’t build that’ clearly refers to roads and bridges–public infrastructure we count on the government to build and maintain.”

That’s bunk, and not only because “business” is more proximate to the pronoun “that” and therefore its more likely antecedent. The Truth Team’s interpretation is ungrammatical. “Roads and bridges” is plural; “that” is singular. If the Team is right about Obama’s meaning, he should have said, “You didn’t build those.”

Barack Obama is supposed to be the World’s Greatest Orator, the smartest man in the world. Yet his campaign asks us to believe he is not even competent to construct a sentence.

So let’s examine this thing we call our language and see how it actually works:

“If you’ve got a business (singular), you didn’t build THAT (singular).”

Which of course is what Obama very clearly said. Because yes, you turd, yes he WAS referring to business and in particular to the immediate antecedent noun “a business”.

Whereas if Obama had actually intended to refer to roads and bridges and ignore the general antecedent rule with pronouns he would have said:

“Somebody invested in roads and bridges (plural, and in fact actually two plurals). If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build THOSE. Somebody else made THOSE happen.”

Which he didn’t say. Because he’s a communist among other reasons.  Just as conservatives have been trying to tell the nation for the last four years as it has circled the drain due to Obama’s failed socialist policies.

Or another way to express it in Obama speak: “All the Obamas and all of the liberals in the world is stupid.”  Because they are literally trying to “fundamentally transform” the English language along with America in order to explain away Obama’s Marxist Freudian slip.

The Washington Post points out that Obama’s words are right in line with what he’s been saying all along:

Here’s the entire quote:

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.”

His words this time were a little stronger (or perhaps impolitic), but he’s said basically the same thing before.

From June: “Yes, there have been fierce arguments throughout our history between both parties about the exact size and role of government — some honest disagreements. But in the decades after World War II, there was a general consensus that the market couldn’t solve all of our problems on its own.”

From his January State of the Union Address: “… Even my Republican friends who complain the most about government spending have supported federally financed roads and clean energy projects and federal offices for the folks back home. The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective government.”

From 2009, before his stimulus package passed: “Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy, where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending.”

So, whether you want to talk about English grammar or whether you want to talk about Obama’s own history and his own policies, he said what he said and he meant what he said.

“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.”

I have also pointed out that all the things Obama referred to minimize the role that business owners play in their own success while maximizing the role that Government plays in their success – public schools and public school teachers, public roads, government loans and the Internet – were ALL used by mass murderer James Holmes.  And yet I don’t hear Obama claiming the credit for Holmes’ success as a murderous psycho for using public schools, public roads, government grants and the Internet the way he’s claiming credit for small business owners’ success.

Advertisements

White House Whitewash Sestak Cover-Story Falling Apart

June 1, 2010

Pennsylvania Democrat Governor Ed Rendell had this to say about the Sestak contoversy:

“Stonewalling it for months — yes, not smart. This explanation is perfectly reasonable. They should have put it out there at the beginning.”

So we have an acknowledgment that the White House has been stonewalling for months.  That much is correct.

What ISN’T correct is that the “explanation is perfectly reasonable.”  It isn’t reasonable at all.

First of all, the White House itself refutes the notion that the Bill Clinton telephone offer of a non-paying position in exchange for Sestak dropping his Senate bid was all there was to this story.

The White House memo uses the plural word “discussions.”  As in “discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak.”  And these discussions took place between June and July.  Which means unless Bill Clinton called Joe Sestak in June and hung up the phone two months later, this call clearly wasn’t all there was.

So we’re not just talking about one conversation with Bill Clinton.  Nor is Bill Clinton a member of the White House staff.  The White House itself acknowledges that a member or members of the White House staff contacted Joe Sestak.  Which member of the White House staff?  When?  And regarding what?

And the memo also says:

“Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch advisory board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.”

Wow.  They really make that advisory position sound like “something of value,” i.e., something which would be illegal to offer in the first place.

But the claim that Sestak could serve on the presidential board and retain his seat in the House of Representatives is simply factually incorrect.

Rep. Joe Sestak would in fact NOT have been able to serve in the House of Representatives and serve on a presidential or “executive” advisory board.  Ever hear about a little thing called “the Separation of Powers”?

May 29, 2010
Sestak cover story starts to unravel
Ed Lasky

Crafting a cover story that is consistent with awkward facts is hard. Did the best and the brightest miss this? Sestak was not eligible to serve on the Intelligence Advisory Board. Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:

In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton.  And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.

As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. [….]


The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, “At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,’ and that’s all I heard…I heard ‘presidential board,’ and I think it was intel.” In addition, the Times reported that “people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment” to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.

An already implausible story has become much harder to believe.

How “reasonable” is this story, Governor Rendell?  And THIS is the story that justifies what you yourself acknowledge was MONTHS of STONEWALLING???

It is hard to imagine that anyone believed for a second that Joe Sestak would pass up a unique opportunity to become a United States Senator in exchange for such a flimsy offer.  It is even more ridiculous to believe that Bill Clinton – a former president – would be called upon to make such a transparently ridiculous offer.  And it is even more ridiculous yet that neither the White House, or Bill Clinton, or Rep. Sestak would have been so completely unaware that the very basis of the offer – a position which would allow Sestak to serve in the House AND serve on a presidential board – was in fact completely false.

You want to know what makes a lot more sense?  The White House stonewalled for months because they had no legitimate answer to the Joe Sestak bribe offer, and then a White House lawyer thought fast and crafted a transparently false explanation.

For the record, Joe Sestak affirmed several important points: 1) that he was offered a “federal job.”  A federal job is the kind of thing that pays.  2) Sestak affirmed that the “federal job” was “high ranking.”  3) Sestak affirms that it was the “White House” that made the “high ranking” “federal job” offer.

The current White House Whitewash fails to deal with all three points.  And then on top of that, they acknowledge that “discussions” (plural) took place over a two month period while only releasing an account of only ONE discussion.  And that these discussions were between the White House staff and Congressman Sestak.  And that the basis of the job offer was something that Sestak could do while retaining his job as Congressman – which has clearly been refuted.

And this was the best thing that the White House could come up with after three months of stonewalling.

This is clearly a cover story.

Something really stinky is going on.

This is clearly a serious violation of the law.

And this is also part of a clear PATTERN OF CORRUPTION:

Sestak-gate: White House Offered Romanoff Job, Too
Wednesday, 26 May 2010 08:18 PM
By Jim Meyers

Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.

And do I need to invoke the name of “Blagojevich” and his attempt to sell Barack Obama’s Senate Seat?

The Chicago way is a very, very ugly way.  And Obama has been in it up to his eyeballs.  Chicago is a dirty place filled with dirty politicians – and Obama was perfectly at home with all the dirt.

That Chicago corruption extends right into Obama’s home, by way of his wife Michelle.  This is a woman who sat on high-paying boards in direct quid-pro-quo consequences of Obama advancing in public office.  And in some of those boards, she participated in the worst kind of hospital patient-dumping.

Here’s a video of Michelle Obama you ought to watch – if you can stand the revelations:

Too bad we voted to nationalize the Chicago Way.