jefferiah

I don't quote the rest, because that sentence on its own is enough. And obviously Bubber has seen the speech. I don't have to quote the whole thing. I am asking what "that" is and I am pointing to the sentence in which the specific "that" I am referring to is situated. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." Now, any reasonable person can surmise from that sentence that "that" refers to the business. It's quite simple. To suggest that he is saying "If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges and the internet" is pretty absurd. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't work for the Romney campaign, so it's not my job. But you should stick to the topic at hand. What you have just said is not an argument. Calling it a misinterpretation over and over doesn't make it so. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." What is "that"?

So another leader said, if you've got a business, you didn't build that?

Didn't you leave out some words in there? Nice editing. Or did the internet make that happen?

So the sentence is actually...... If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges, etc. Hmmmmmm........

I just want you to tell me what "that" was..... Do you assert it is the aforementioned business or roads and bridges?

How about some Fast and Furious transparency?

I don't want anyone to know what those sentences are? Don't you think that sounds little paranoid? I quote what is relevant. Here is some more for you. And if you like you can add more if you wish. "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." Is that enough for you? Now answer the question..... In the part which says "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that", what does "that" refer to? Are you suggesting the sentence should be rightly interpreted as.... If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges.

I have seen the whole speech. It is the same speech you have seen. So, how you can suggest that I am gullible to believe something or other, when all I am doing is quoting Obama directly. I would say the gullible ones are those who are contorting themselves every which way to make it so that Obama didn't say precisely what Obama said. (Or did someone else make that happen.) Now I will ask you again. It is a very simple question. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." What does the pronoun "that" refer to?

Right, so basically we ask a question with a negative implication. Does Mr. X eat live kittens? He has provided no proof that he doesn't eat kittens. Should we be concerned? Who knows?

Well that's a lot of wild, blathering speculation! That's quite a technique you have....perhaps Romney did this, perhaps he did that, and so on. Who knows? How much did Obama know about Fast and Furious? What is he hiding? Perhaps he is a felon. Who knows?

People lose jobs. Bain invested in failing companies, so in any cases where jobs were eventually lost, a lot of them were going to be anyways and at least got extended. How about some transparency on Fast and Furious? Seems a bit more important than someones taxes.

I think Bonam's assessment was pretty spot on. I don't buy that Romney did not pay taxes for ten years. More likely he got some pretty good tax breaks. Either way, why should people care that much about his taxes? It's not like he walked guns across the border. Romney's taxes are the issue that won't go away among the echochamber who won't be voting for him anyways.

Who cares if Romney and Ryan are millionaires? It's irrelevant.

He said "If you've got a business, you didn't build that...somebody else made that happen." Now, are you asserting that by "that" he meant "roads and bridges"? Are you suggesting that the proper interpretation of that sentence should be: "If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges." Sorry, Bubber. That just does not fly. Shady is right on that one.

Obama made the same mistake in 2008. Maybe it works.

And I hear he eats kittens. To me, Ryan comes across as a pretty smart, like-able guy. No doubt, he will be a much better debater than Palin was. He seems persuasive and genuine to me. That's a matter of opinion, of course. But I think Ryan is an excellent choice. As far as people who are going to vote Democrat no matter what, there is no one Romney could pick who they won't be prepared to dislike.

Well, to be fair, I did not articulate it very well. Of course it is. People can have political opinions shaped by their religious conscience.

I disagree. But that is no problem. For me, I would define a political belief as any belief on a matter of policy. Whether you believe it because of your religious convictions or whatever, if it effects policy, then it is a political belief.

I fully realize that. I even said as much in my post, or at least tried to communicate that I understand you were not saying anything with respect to what beliefs people are allowed to have. But a belief does not have to be rational to be political. It is political by virtue of the fact that whether or not gay marriage is legal or not is a matter of policy.

It doesn't need to have reasoning. I agree with Ron Paul on the matter that you cannot legislate morality. So as far as I am concerned, gay marriage does not affect me. If gay marriage is currently illegal in some places then making it legal is a political issue. So whether you believe it should be or not (whether your belief is based on religion or something you read in a fortune cookie) it is a political belief. I don't know what this has to do with Sarah Palin. I never said that objection to my beliefs is persecution. You are carrying out an argument with me that you must have had with someone else.

I have said that I don't believe you can legislate religious morality. But I don't know that Chick-Fil-A has actually stopped gays from being gay or marrying.

I sincerely doubt that Betsy wants gays to be bullied.

The belief as to whether it should be legalized or not is a political one. Legitimacy is irrelevant. People are allowed to have political opinions, legitimate or not. Not that you disagree with that. You have already said you have no argument. But just pointing out that in that respect it is political.

Who here is saying anything that remotely resembles that?