You Didn’t Build That – Al Gore Did

Via my new favorite Tumblr site You didn’t build that.

For a more complete takedown of Obama’s “You didn’t build that” speech see zombie’s lengthy essay, especially the part about the internet.

Terror Trials: Delaying American Justice to Observe Ramadan
Congressman Relieves Himself In A Cup On A Delta Flight To Atlanta
  • jim_m

    Indeed. If there was need of further evidence of 0bama’s communist world view (there wasn’t) then this speech should be it. When he declares that the product of all business activity is the result of the government he is asserting the government’s right to own everything and determine who gets what. It is inherently communist and betrays his upbringing.

  • Sky__Captain

    What gets me is the apparent fact that 0bama seems to believe that government builds EVERYTHING, ignoring that fact that in the US, the government has no money to do anything – it is all taxpayers money.
    At least it theoretically is that way until 0bama runs up annual trillion-dollar deficits…

    • jim_m

      Wrong again. YOU have no money apart from what the lord obama and his government lackeys say you can have.

  • Guest

    The word I”m getting is that Mitt doesn’t want to release his tax returns because it shows that he donated to Planned Parenthood a number of years.


    • Sky__Captain

      And heeeere’s Old Derp-for-Brains with yet ANOTHER try at thread-jacking misdirection about Mitt Romney in order to protect his Choom-Messiah..

      Nice try, DERPy, but lets talk about 0bama’s verbal flubs instead.
      Or maybe 0bama’s background.
      Or his job performance.

      • Guest

        Just got word he donated to the American Sociallist Party too?


        • retired.military

          Yes folks another breaking news item. Grumpy and Obama donated to the American socialist party.

          Next Up Grumpy kisses Obama’s ass (yet again).

          • jim_m

            He’d have to remove his tongue before doing it again.

          • Guest

            wow- i really get your goat, dont’ I.

            Are you always a rude ass? – or is it only when your party’s candidate won’t release his tax returns because he’d be caught having donated money to the muslim brotherhood?


          • jim_m

            The squealing says that I was close to the mark.

          • Guest

            lol…. derp!! and your rudeness and foul mouth shows that I bug the hell out of you….


          • DERP!
            nothing more than derpy!

          • More like his whole head.

        • DERP!
          nothing but

        • Jwb10001

          Isn’t that the party that Obama actually belonged to?

      • UOG

        Or how about Obama releases his medical records, SAT scores, college grades? He’s willing to release pictures of himself while he’s eating a hamburger, how about something more relevant to the job? His reluctance reminds me of his petulant, “Can’t I just eat my waffle?” statement. Duck and run, the actions of a coward.

        Of course, “he’s had a lot on his plate” lately, what with all those fund raisers he’s been attending.

        • Guest

          If Romney cant match the tax record release that Obama did – heck, that Romney’s own father did when he was running — that’s a pretty sad statement.

          Obviously he’s got something to hide…

          Obviously we’re going to find out sooner or later.

          • UOG

            Actually, the only thing that’s obvious is that you can’t smell what your shoveling.

          • Guest


          • We’re not used to seeing you speak your own native language here, Grumpo.

          • retired.military

            Yep mr Lying Chickenshit Bullshitter

            “Obviously he’s got something to hide..”

            Oh you are talking about Obama and his transcripts and once again you are off topic. But hey that never stopped you before.

          • Guest


          • Jwb10001

            No I think he’s talking about fast and furious after all that is a current event and probably involves actual felonies.

      • Jwb10001

        Every time this A-hole wants to talk about possible felonies he needs to be smacked with Fast and Furious which is a real scandal of major proprotions with likely felonies having been commited.

        • herddog505

          Yep. Barry has asserted executive priviledge (about an operation he has claimed he knew nothing about) in the face of a congressional investigation.

          If that doesn’t scream “something to hide”, I don’t know what does.

    • jim_m

      Jesus! Kevin how many threads does this douche bag have to hijack before somebody reins him in?

      • Guest


    • retired.military

      And so what Mr Lying chickenshit Bullshitter. The word I am getting is that Obama doesnt want to release his transcripts because he sucked in school. Lets put this to rest right now.
      a Say that Romney donated to PP.
      b. What the fuck does it matter. It isnt like we are voting for Romney. We are voting against Obama.
      But keep on pinning your hopes on BS. It is the only thing you have.

      • Guest

        Maybe you’re right, maybe he sucked in school.

        A racist would assume that Obama got where he got because of Affirmative Action and not because of his own efforts.

        I can understand why racists would be anxious to expose Obama as having benefited from Affirmative Action. I get that.

        But we didn’t hear that argument until the pressure was on Mittens to release his tax records and he refused. That’s when the right started pounding on the “Obama school records” drum.

        It’s just another excuse and cover for Mitt to run and hide like a little girl.

        I heard that Mitt won’t release his tax returns because he paid for someone’s abortion and deducted it from his taxes….

        developing… more lies needed… developing…

        • DERP!
          Choom derp!

        • jim_m

          A racist would assume that Obama got where he got because of Affirmative Action and not because of his own efforts.

          And obama could dispel all of that by releasing his college transcripts. Of course there has been comment that his transcripts would not have gotten him in to Columbia and Harvard had he been white.

          In that case Affirmative Action is the reason he got to where he is. In that case Affirmative Action did what it was designed to do, give a person a leg up. Is it racist to point out that Affirmative Action may have worked? Is Affirmative Action designed to not work, but only be a symbolic gesture toward improving people’s lives? Such is the conclusion drawn from your comments.

        • herddog505

          Grumpy[W]e didn’t hear that argument until the pressure was on Mittens to release his tax records and he refused. That’s when the right started pounding on the “Obama school records” drum.

          Are you kidding??? People have been pushing for Barry to release his transcripts for years. It was in large part a reaction to lefty assertions that he’s such a friggin’ genius: “Prove it.”

          What’s next? Are you going to claim that birtherism is a response to Mitt’s refusal to release his tax records, too?

    • jim_m

      Ok so tell me why it’s OK for Reid and Pelosi to hide their tax returns? What are they hiding? What felonies are they concealing?


      • Guest

        Uhm, they aren’t running for President, Jim.

        Maybe you should shut off the computer and pick up a newspaper.

        • herddog505

          Is there some list of information that politicians MUST release depending on the office they seek? Or is the information “required” really determined by their opponents eager to “prove” that they’ve “got something to hide”?

        • jim_m

          The Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate stand 2nd and 3rd in the line of Presidential Succession. That means that Reid is number 3 in line and Pelosi is campaigning to be number 2. I think it is highly relevant to the discussion that they pony up these documents.

          • DERPy is on time-out, Jim.

          • jim_m

            I know. But he left a mess behind him.

          • Doesn’t it always. Kind of like #occufail that way.

  • Guest

    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.

    “The ‘that’ in ‘you didn’t build that’ referred to roads, bridges,
    infrastructure, education, internet, emergency services and law and order — all
    services that protect and enable business owners along the way toward
    creating a successful operation. This isn’t a new argument. Not only
    has Obama himself used a version of it countless times in his stump
    speech, a similar speech by Elizabeth Warren, now running for Senate in
    Massachusetts, went viral in 2011.”

    By “you didn’t build that,” Obama clearly means business-people
    didn’t build “the unbelievable American system that we have that allowed
    you to thrive.”

    This is basically just “American exceptionalism” again: take something the president said out of context, and repeat it no matter how often it gets explained and debunked.

    The question is: why resort to cheap, lazy tricks like that, instead
    of making an actual case based on what Obama actually said and done?

    The obvious answer is that the Fox/Limbaugh Republican-aligned media
    don’t care. There’s no incentive for anyone to make a careful argument
    when lazy lies will be broadcast just as much, and just as efficiently.
    The result isn’t just mendacity; it’s lazy mendacity, whether it’s pulling a quote out of context or claiming that John Kerry only released two years of tax returns when in fact it was twenty.

    Why not claim the president hates small business people, when
    saying he does will get you (within the Republican Party and media)
    amply rewarded for it?

    Why be lazy and lie? LOL… he must be new to right wing politics.

    • jim_m

      Sure. It means whatever Grumpy spins it to mean. It certainly cannot mean the straight forward and clear meaning because that would out obama as the radical communist that he really is.

      And Grumpy, obama has already stated that he does not believe in American exceptionalism, you ignorant douchebag.

      • Guest

        It meaning is clear when you include the rest of what he said, putting the remark in context… which is exactly why the right wing meme machine is excluding the context.

        It’s just another right wing lie – just like the lies NEWSROOM exposed last week on HBO.

        and he’s a muslim too!

        and he was born in kenya!

        • jim_m

          Seriously? You look to an HBO fantasy show for hard news? Moron.

          • Guest

            It was factual. It included video clips of Bachman, Palin, Beck, Fox News anchors, Limbaugh — all repeating the same lie – just like the lie above.

          • retired.military

            Yes Mr Lying Chickenshit Buillshitter. And those clips were all taken in context with no editting

            You know like ABC did with the Trayvon Martin 911 Call. LIke the MSM does with republicans all the time.

            No context, no full statements, just little clips here and there. When you post 3 paragrphs of obama and Proclaim it to mean X when anyone with half a brain can clearly see you are talking out of your ass,.

          • UOG

            I find it gratifying to have Grumpy here questioning the context of some Obama quotes. I guess that means he wasn’t one of the lunatic assholes out to slime Bush over the Mission Accomplished sign on the Abraham Lincoln. Right, Grump?

        • retired.military

          Well Mr Lying Chickenshit Bullshitter does know about lies.

          He does it all the time.

          • Guest


  • Guest

    From Zombie’s essay (link in post)

    So when President Obama and his mentor Elizabeth Warren justify their
    call for tax hikes by pointing out that all entrepreneurs benefit from
    communal infrastructure, they’re committing the classic Straw Man
    Fallacy by arguing against anarchy — a position that their opponents do
    not hold.

    Here’s the shocking truth: President Obama and Elizabeth Warren are
    correct — we all benefit from certain taxpayer-funded collectivist
    government infrastructure projects and programs. And here’s the other
    shocking truth: Therefore, we should limit government expenditures to just those programs.

    Shorter? Let’s only fund the program us well-off white folks need, and scrap the programs that benefit the poor, minorities, handicapped people, children, women (you know, just the slutty liberal ones).

    Zombie boils it down to the essential element, conservatives who think like him think the government should only benefit THEM and the people THEY CHOOSE as being worthy.

    • jim_m

      Since you are obviously too dim to get the point of Zombie’s article, the point was that the amount of government spending that goes toward the services they so boldly tout is minor and furthermore that the federal government does very little to support the majority of what obama and warren claim to begin with.

      The point stands that obama’s world view is communist. He believes that all production belongs to the government to distribute to all of society.. It’s communist. It;s evil., It leads only to a totalitarian dictatorship, which is where all communist ideology leads inevitably.

      • Guest

        yeah, that portion is minor when you deduct out the things that benefit somebody other than well-off white men.

        • jim_m

          Education is paid primarily through local taxes dipshit. Always has been. You really are stupid aren’t you?

          I see you do not deny that obama is a communist or that you desire such a totalitarian society.

          • Guest

            And here I thought there were federal grants and loans programs that help people get a college education.

            Not to mention the GI Bill.

            And federal school lunch programs too.

            I should read more conservative news sites – then I can be a smart fella like Jim!

            Oh, wait – jim is talking out of ass and lying again… as demonstrated above by those links.

            Never mind 😉

            “You really are stupid aren’t you?”

            Actually, Jim, you just proved how stupid you are.

            And you home school your children, don’t you.

            be sure to not tell them about the grants and loans that can help them get a college education, jim, cause you know– they don’t really exist.

          • jim_m

            GI bill was to provide education in return for the completed service to your country. So the people receiving those benefits have already paid for them with service.

            Most of primary and secondary education is paid for with local money. Most college funding is not through government grants. So once again you point out a couple of minor programs one which is a payment for services provided and the other which is insignificant when compared to the whole. You ignore the overwhelming cost of education because it contradicts your ideological point, which is little more that people have no right to control their money and no right to earn anything other than what the government says they do.

            And I am not certain how much learning is done at lunch, but apparently that is the only think you learned.

          • Guest

            “So the people receiving those benefits have already paid for them with service.”

            How surprising that you’d ignore the cost of the GI Bill. Their service earns them the entitlement, but the program is funded by all of us through our federal tax dollars.

            And you home school your children, so of course a federal school lunch program has no value to you. It’s there to feed low-income children, and you don’t see any value in that at all. I get that.

            And it sounds like you are well off enough that you and your wife don’t need federal loans and grants to help out your kids through college. Good for you, Jim

            And there we have the essence of Jim’s viewpoint. If “He” doesn’t need a school lunch program then “We” don’t need it either.

            If “He” doesn’t need federal loans and grants to help put “His” kids through college then defund it — “We” don’t need it if he doesn’t.

            Jim, and well-to do white conservatives like Jim, are driving the effort to defund programs that benefit the poor, elderly, infirm, etc. because Jim doesn’t need those programs for himself or his family.

            And, for Jim, anyone who does can go to hell.

            Nicely played, Jim, for a moment we thought you were a fiscal conservative — now we know you’re just an ass.

          • jim_m

            As for the lying, I have made a truthful point. The only lies here are your and there are any number of people here that have called you on them.

          • Guest

            You lie hourly.

  • herddog505

    Let’s assume that Barry’s got a point, i.e. that none of us really succeeds on his own because people through our lives (parents, teachers, mentors, friends) have helped us become the people we are and hence have helped us succeed.

    Let’s further assume that we all take advantage of the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure that exists in the country (none of us built that, right?).


    So what? If we – somehow – aren’t personally responsible for our success, then what does that say about ANY of us? And if we aren’t successul, is that somebody else’s fault?

    As for the infrastructure, it can reasonably be said that no businessman built the roads over which his goods travel. Again, so what? Without the businessmen who create jobs, there would be no money for roads and no need to build the things in the first place.

    Barry’s argument appeals to morons, but a little thought (something they aren’t capable of) would show them quickly that’s it’s completely specious. Again: without businessmen – without people buying and selling, making deals, forming companies, and engaging in economic activity that creates wealth AND JOBS, there would be none of the things that Barry claims “they” didn’t build.

    It’s about like claiming that Ford didn’t build cars because he didn’t PERSONALLY put them together, or that Kaiser didn’t build ships because all his workers actually did it, or that Gates isn’t responsible for the success of Microsoft because the REAL credit goes to his grammar school teachers.

    • Guest

      His point is that you know need to pay it back, pay the taxes that will build the roads, schools and future internets – you can’t just hoard your money like a rich Romney and ignore that you got your riches on the backs of everybody else in the country.

      You built the business, but you didn’t build the infrastructure that supports your business and the public schools that gave you and education so you could build your business – we ALL built it.

      • jim_m

        Um, Yes you can unless the government is now in charge of telling you how you must spend all of your money. That’s called communism. That is what you advocate and what obama is.

        • Guest

          *Sigh. Paying taxes isn’t “communism” Jim. Grow up.

          • Jwb10001

            Sigh, and who pays the majority of the taxes in this country? Who has given back the most? It sure as hell isn’t the unsuccessful. What is to be gained by bringing down successful people? Why would you or anyone else bemoan success. If you believe solutions come from government why would you attack those that give the most to government?

          • jim_m

            What is to be gained by bringing down successful people?

            Equality. The new buzz word is income inequality. We can’t make everyone rich so we will make everyone poor. That is to say everyone but the elite who understand how to redistribute wealth. They will be rich but their empathy for the downtrodden will give them a dispensation.

          • jim_m

            Not that you can respond (currently) but it isn’t paying taxes, it is the belief on the left that all my income belongs to the government and the government has the right to tell me what I can keep. There is a difference.

      • herddog505

        Then let us ALL pay taxes.

        Further, if the basic argument is some sort of quid pro quo, then who’s to say when somebody has paid enough? Who’s to say exactly what anybody owes “the system”? If a businessman owes his success to public schools or public roads and therefore ought to pay more taxes (and that’s REALLY the issue here), then oughtn’t we ALL pay more taxes?

        It’s quite a nice little trap: at the end of the day, we all owe everything to the country (government) because we’d be ignorant, naked and starving without public schools, roads, and other works, so the government can claim any amount of our money it chooses.

        THAT is basically what Barry is arguing.

  • Guest

    The reason right wingers are pushing this hard is obvious. They are trying to distract from the beating that their candidate is taking in the media and in the public discourse.

    Mitt is on the ropes…

    No one in politics is surprised that Mitt Romney’s personal wealth
    and business career have become a central point of the 2012 campaign. It
    has happened in virtually every race that Romney has ever run. But what
    has stunned both parties is how unprepared he has been to address the
    accusations that have dominated the campaign discourse for a fortnight,
    with no end in sight. The White House’s aggressive, often cynical,
    attempts to paint Romney as a secretive, out-of-touch plutocrat are
    defining the race right now and maybe pre-determining the outcome.

    At issue: Romney’s refusal to release more than his two most recent
    tax returns and his inability to clarify the terms of his departure from
    Bain Capital in 1999. Despite an early warning in January, when rival
    Republican presidential candidates raised both of these matters in a
    last-ditch effort to stop the former Massachusetts governor from locking
    up the nomination, Romney’s campaign has been remarkably flat footed in
    fending off waves of attacks from the Obama campaign, which has used
    the one-two punch of television advertising and well-placed opposition
    research to dominate the dialogue.

    The tax returns are another matter. Romney continues to refuse to reveal
    returns prior to 2010 (his 2011 returns are pending, as yet incomplete
    due to the complexities of Romney’s holdings), arguing that they would
    only be used by the Obama campaign to attack him unfairly. His advisers
    insist that there is nothing explosive in the mystery filings. Still,
    anxious GOPers outside Romney’s direct orbit have been sounding the
    alarm; former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Congressman Ron Paul,
    and the editorial board of the National Review, have prodded Romney to
    get it all out and over with. But sources inside Romney’s campaign claim
    no such move is being considered. Romney strategist Stuart Stevens says
    that “Barack Obama has spent over $50 million to try and convict Mitt
    Romney of being successful. He’s on the wrong side of history with an
    old argument Americans have always rejected.”

    That’s the context. Don’t fall for the ruse. Mitt needs to do the simple act that every other presidential candidate has done for the last 36 years.

    The Democrats are raising this now, before Mitt has the nomination, just as the other Republican contenders raised the issue before Mittens locked things up.

    Conservatives, you have a chance to learn what we all are going to learn — but Mitt doesn’t want to release these returns before he officially has the nomination.

    Aren’t you curious about what you’re “buying” with a Mitt ticket?

    Mitt doesn’t want you to know… which should make all of us, Republican and Democrats alike, suspicious.

    • Seems to me like the IRS would probably have audited the returns by now, if there were a problem.

      And having seen how the left ‘investigated’ something as simple and self-evident (if you actually knew what you were looking at, and understood the regulations) as Bush’s ANG attendance, then I’ve got rather severe doubts that any ‘examination’ of Romney’s returns will be done in a knowledgeable manner.

      It will certainly not be done fairly or impartially.

      “Romney continues to refuse to reveal returns prior to 2010 (his 2011 returns are pending, as yet incomplete due to the complexities of Romney’s holdings), arguing that they would only be used by the Obama campaign to attack him unfairly. ”

      I find nothing to disagree with there.

      “Aren’t you curious about what you’re “buying” with a Mitt ticket?”

      Nope. I know exactly what I’m buying.

      I’m buying “Not Obama”.

    • I’ve sent you an e-mail about this as well, but you can’t post about Romney’s tax returns in every post.

      • And now @Grumpy has earned a timeout. Enjoy (for a while) everyone…

        • Thank you, Kevin.

          Hate to say it, but he didn’t bring much of anything at all to the conversation but argument.

        • How about until the heat death of the universe instead of temporarily?

          • jim_m

            You know in Hindu cosmology the universe is forever beginning and ending and beginning again, so with that perspective, until the end of this universe would be temporary.

            But I will take whatever I can get.

          • Sky__Captain

            Even then, Grumpy will be back. He will be using a different name, of course.
            The good thing is that he will be very easy to spot.

          • I note with approval that the banishment of derpy has had the added benefit of “encouraging the others.”

  • Vagabond661

    Grumpy, we are more concerned with what Obama wants to do with our money than what mitt did with his.

    • The thing is, up until the 2000 election I was reasonably sure that the Democrats were supporters of a 2-party system. And that they were ethical, pretty much, in their objections and would pay at least some attention to detail when running the country.

      The old guard, at least, had the notion that at the end of the day the country needed to be in good shape for the long run. Yes, they were inclined to get what they could out of the system – but like the Red Cross they were content to get the occasional pint of blood, and knew to let the economy recover before tapping it again.

      But the old guard pretty much retired during the Clinton years, and Al Gore’s loss started a strain of partisanship that bordered on the insane. I watched what happened during the 2000-2008 timeframe with a good bit of disbelief – these weren’t the Democrats that my father voted for. We were in a war, and the ‘loyal opposition’ was doing it’s best to hamstring the ability of the President to fight it? To effectively lose the war, if possible, because it’d hurt his 2004 chances? Blocking off oil exploration, because it’d take 5 years to get the oil to market? (Yeah, it was past the next election cycle – but did they think that the oil wouldn’t be needed?)

      Okay, they shift from the Red Cross to a swarm of leeches…

      Now, we see Obama throwing out everything he can to damage Romney. I don’t see the sense in it long-term, myself. Yeah, if Obama pulls out all the stops, plays the dirtiest campaign possible, stuffs the ballot box in locations that are close – he MIGHT pull out a win. But at what cost long-term to the trust of the people?

      The Democratic Party has changed from folks who looked at running the country as a responsibility they took (more or less) seriously, to people looking to steal everything they can get their hands on. Oh, ‘legally’, of course. Executive orders, ‘stimulus’ packages, graft, corruption – they know the scams in Chicago to move money around. And Obama’s been schooled by the best the Chicago machine had to offer.

      Funny thing is – I don’t think they understood just what a spotlight would be on them once their hand-picked candidate got into office. Or realized just how effective the internet is as both a source of information and a means to share it.

      By getting just what they wanted, they may have set into play a process that’ll destroy the party. Because the only thing a political party has to offer is the ability to run the country… and to do that they’ve got to have the trust of the people.

      Trust that is hard to earn – and can be lost in a single comment.

      “Read my lips – no new taxes!” killed Bush Senior’s chance at the a second term – though it took him breaking that promise and the Democrats exploiting his own words to do it. (That and Perot. Toss in a wild card like him, and who knows what’s going to happen.)

      “You didn’t build that!” may well be Obama’s signature statement, that’ll do him in just the same…

      Interesting times indeed…

  • Sky__Captain

    As for Grumpy, the real reason he hijacks EVERY thread with the “Mitt Romney won’t release his tax returns” whine whenever there is a potential criticism of his Choom-Messiah distills down to one statement:

    “If that’s the prism with which you view Barack Obama that doesn’t suprise anyone, so why bother sharing it.

    Honest, we really could care less.”

    Grumpy on May 8, 2012.

    It’s just a one-trick-pony, and it’s lame.
    Maybe somebody will put it out off this website.

    • jim_m

      I like this Grumpy quote:

      I know it’s the truth, and what loud-mouthed asses like you believe or don’t believe matters less than nothing.

      Invincibly ignorant and unwilling to examine any evidence to the contrary of his errant beliefs. Just like the science is settled, his mind is made up and no amount of evidence will ever change it.

  • Sky__Captain

    Oh, and here is WHY L’il Grumpy tries to hijack threads:

  • Jwb10001

    I curious do the over 40% of american wage earners that pay no federal income tax at all use the roads the rest of us are paying for? Do the people who rent apartments use the public education that home owner real estate taxes pay for? Why is it only the successful that are using facilities that taxes pay for? How much does it COST to have so many people off the income tax rolls?

    • herddog505

      What do you call somebody who uses things but pays nothing for them? Or, worse, demands that somebody else pay for them?

      • jim_m

        A democrat