‘The key thing is that Obama is angry, and he’s talking not in his normal voice but in a “black dialect.”’

Jonathan Chait on “The Real Reason ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Works“:

YouDidntBuildThatMitt Romney’s plan of blatantly lying about President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech is clearly drawing blood. But what makes the attack work so well is not so much the lie itself but the broader subtext of it.

The key thing is that Obama is angry, and he’s talking not in his normal voice but in a “black dialect.” This strikes at the core of Obama’s entire political identity: a soft-spoken, reasonable African-American with a Kansas accent. From the moment he stepped onto the national stage, Obama’s deepest political fear was being seen as a “traditional” black politician, one who was demanding redistribution from white America on behalf of his fellow African-Americans.

So the real reason America was completely turned off by Obama’s attack on business is… because America is racist.

Of course.

Anyone who finds fault with The One is racist.  That’s become the de facto definition of the term.

And there are idiots like Chait not only buying into that foolishness but peddling it.

This is what liberalism has become.

Buffoonish lunacy.

Originally published at Brutally Honest.

Olympic Babe Of The Day - Jen Kessy
Obama's DOJ Refuses to Affirm America's Religious Freedoms
  • 914

    First: Kenyan accent, not Kansas..

    2nd: He didn’t build that ‘angry’ voice either! His puppet masters did that!

    The only thing he could possibly be mad about is no more free golf vacations.. Wonder if he has ever golfed in Louisiana? No, his mistress in the gulf ended that pipe dream..


    • jim_m

      a soft-spoken, reasonable African-American with a Kansas accent.

      And where the hell would he get that from? His childhood in Hawaii? Or maybe Indonesia? What a bunch of BS. obama is about as genuine as a 3 dollar bill.

      • 914

        I’d still spend that 3 dollar bill or frame it. Ofrauda, not so much..

  • Brucehenry

    “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 inroads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

    “That” meaning “this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive” and “roads and bridges.”

    You KNOW what Obama meant, yet you claim he meant something else.

    Saying that Obama was dissing small business owners in that speech is just as dishonest as it was when you guys claimed John Kerry was dissing the troops with the “botched joke” thingie.

    You guys will say anything, and angrily pretend to sincerely believe it when called on it.

    • 914

      He meant what he said and is angry cause the main shit stream media don’t monopolize the airwaves any more..

      “Real” news gets out and there ain’t a damn thing he or his apologists can do about it.

      Face up Bruce.. He’s toast..

    • jim_m


      obama was repeating what Warren had said and both of them were clear at the time they said it that they meant that government was responsible for anyone and everyone’s success. They made these statements as a basis for rationalizing wealth redistribution. There was no other purpose. This was meant as a justification of taking people’s hard earned money away from them.

      We know that the is what they both meant. They were very clear about it.

      I suggest that you look up the definition of Kinsleyism: A gaffe where on inadvertently says the truth about what they are thinking. That is obama’s problem here. Not hat anyone is distorting his words or taking them out of context. His problem is that everyone understood exactly what he meant.

      • Brucehenry

        As I said, you’ll say anything and pretend you sincerely believe it.

        • jim_m

          I believe that obama thinks that government is the reason that people succeed. I believe that just as he has never earned anything in his life he believes that no one has ever really worked to succeed on their own.

          He and Warren have been pretty damned explicit on this issue. You are just being obtuse.

        • 914

          But unlike Obama, I won’t pretend someone else said it!!

        • retired.military

          Bruce you are accusing us of doing the same thing Obama does Look at the crap we have heard about Romney and Bain and ROmney and the Olympics. ANd Romney and being rich (funny that being a rich politician wasnt a problem with the left when Kerry was running for President and he has 4 times the money Romney has) And you know I am not a Romney Fan by any stretch of the imagination.

    • GarandFan

      “You KNOW what Obama meant”

      No, I know what he SAID. Spin it any way you want. The guy never accomplished anything on his own in his life. ERGO, no one else did either.

    • retired.military


      I am not a mind reader. I dont know what Obama meant. I know what he said. I know what it sounded like. I know also that he has a history of taking liberties with the truth when he gets blowback on something. Besides whenever Bush got blasted for mispronouncing a word I dont seem the left saying “look guys we know what he meant. Cut him some slack here”

      • jim_m

        Let’s be frank. obama has a history of telling one thing to his close supporters and telling something quite different to the public at large. One assumes that since his supporters are friendly that what he tells them is the truth.

      • TomInCali

        When Bush mispronounced a word, said that people wanted to put food “on” their family, or stated that he “never stops thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people”, sure, people gave him a hard time about the gaffe. But no one went around ranting that he literally wanted to put food on people. The difference is that the people here try to get mileage out of pretending that every Obama gaffe is not a gaffe, but a true revelation of his secret thoughts.

        • jim_m

          The obama gaffe is not a gaffe, it is a Kinsleyism.

          • It was a glimpse of the beliefs of a man who knows he has accomplished nothing on his own and who wants to believe and convince others that no one else has accomplished anything on their own.

          • TomInCali

            You make my point.

        • retired.military


          What the left did was call Bush Stupid, ignorant and a moron no matter what he said was a gaffe or even when he wasnt saying something incorrectly. You just dont want to be honest and admit it.

          • TomInCali

            I never denied that. The right does the same to Obama. Your comment is off-topic from what I said. The “left” never tried to claim that Bush’s mis-statements should be taken literally.

          • Commander_Chico

            I thought Bush was articulate enough.

            It was his decisions that were stupid – letting Bin Laden escape in order to start the Iraq war.

          • jim_m

            Chico, your tin foil hat is slipping.

          • Commander_Chico

            It’s not tin foil – numerous insiders, including Tommy Franks, have written about how military assets were withdrawn and withheld from Af/Pak in order to get ready for Iraq.

          • jim_m

            To get ready for Iraq. Not to deliberately let Bin Laden get away. The next thing we will be hearing from you is your extolling of how obama killed bin laden followed by more BS denials that you aren’t supporting him.

          • Commander_Chico

            Bin Laden got away because of incompetence. I never said it was deliberate. Bush was not evil, he was just a fuck-up.

            Although a fuck-up with power can produce evil results.

          • Chico, if you want to go there, blame Clinton …

    • jim_m

      Come on Bruce. I’m sorry that you bought into a lame dem excuse that was thought up a full week after obama made an ass of himself. I’m sorry that obama has repeated his stupid remarks since then.

      But the reality is that 2 prominent dem politicians have made the same remarks. Warren made her dumbass statement months ago and it was nearly word for word what obama said and the same interpretation was made of her remarks. You cannot possibly tell me that obama made the very same comments and meant something different.

      It is your position that sounds stupid and gullible and beggars belief.

      • Brucehenry

        Yes, the same interpretation WAS made of her remarks.

        By guys like you, who will say anything, no matter how disingenuous or patently false, and pretend to sincerely believe it, even when it’s clearly explained. Y’all just kill me.

        Just as you all CLAIMED to think that Kerry was dissing the troops back in ’06 or whenever it was. You knew damn well what the joke was supposed to be, and that he had botched his delivery. But you went on for weeks about what it meant about Kerry. It was dishonest as hell, and so is this new faux outrage.

        • jim_m

          Wait just one minute here!

          You admit that Warren said the same thing. You admit that the same interpretation was made of her remarks. Now you are going to say that obama knowingly said the same damn thing and meant the opposite?

          You’re a dumbass. I thought you were better than just another ignorant stooge of lefty fever swamp propaganda. But I was wrong.

        • jim_m

          Bruce, it does not take a genius to know that John Kerry hates the military and is willing to defame and discredit the American soldier. One need only look to his Winter Soldier testimony for ample evidence of that.

          Any interpretation of his subsequent remarks is likely to be informed by his disgusting and infamous statements in the past. Claiming that he is some American hero is a left wing fiction. You can call him a hero, the rest of us see him as an opportunist and someone who would be a traitor if he thought it would profit him.

          Kerry’s remarks about the troops belied his underlying contempt for the military. Was it just a verbal stumble? Maybe. But had he not been such a douchebag 30 years previously people would have been willing to cut him some slack. Just like people would cut obama some slack if he weren’t already acting like the Manchurian candidate.

        • jim_m

          Bruce, pony up what is being said that is false about obama’s remarks. He said the whole “You didn’t build that” speech. He said it almost exactly like Warren said it. The statement that people do not own the produce of their work was clear.

          You want us to believe that he meant something else? You are the only fool who thinks that. obama was supposed to be a genius. I suppose it was his genius level intelligence that told him to make the same stupid statement that caused a firestorm for Warren and to expect a different reception. I suppose it was his genius level intelligence that told him to try to make he opposite point by using the very same statement.

          Sorry, Bruce,. You are just being a freaking moron.

          • TomInCali

            He didn’t “mean” something else. He meant what he said. It’s just people like you who are pretending to not understand what he said.

            “There’s an apple over there. If you have hunger, you can eat that.”

            You would not seriously claim that “that” in that sentence refers to “hunger” instead of the apple, would you?

            Simlilarly, Obama said: “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.”

            Clearly the “that” refers to the system he describes in the first two sentences, just the same as if he’d said “those things” instead. This isn’t a case of trying to retroactively explain what he meant. This is just a case of some people pretending they didn’t understand.

          • jim_m

            idiot. The interpretation months ago when Warren said the very same thing was that “you didn’t build that” meant that when you built a business you could not take credit for ANY of the success because ALL of the success was due to the fact that the GOVERNMENT had built roads and bridges, etc that enabled you to become successful. The interpretation then was that the government was justified in taking your earnings away from you because they were not yours!!!

            Only a total ideological jackass like YOU tomincali, and YOU BruceHenry and YOU Achwired are going to be duped by the spinning of the dems to try to get obama out of this.

            Warren made the same comments months ago and when obama said THE VERY SAME THING people interpreted it the same way. The idiot is the one who makes the same comment as Warren and claims that they meant something totally different,.

            obama made the comment and we interpret it the same way as we did Warren’s. We do so because of what was said and because what was said perfectly coincides with obama’s history of being a socialist.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, “the interpretation months ago” was what you are pretending to believe now. That interpretation was made by idiots who didn’t know any better, and knaves and dishonest partisans who did. Like yourself.

            When Warren said THE VERY SAME THING, lol, “people interpreted it the same way.” Yes. Stupid people who didn’t know any better, knaves and dishonest partisans who did. Like yourself.

            I’m not claiming Obama and Warren meant two different things. They meant the same thing — that government has a role to play, and that no man is an island. Yes, we all start out with the same public schools, infrastructure, etc., and some folks take what they’ve been given and build empires, and some do not. The key phrase , though, is what “we all start out with” — what we take for granted.

            Just one example will illustrate my point — Walt Disney World. Do you think Walt Disney World would be the success it is today were it not for the Interstate Highway System? Do you think it would ever even have been built at all?

          • jim_m

            Fuck you Bruce. I’m not being dishonest. Where were you defending Warren back then? You’re the dishonest one here. You are the one making a bogus claim to cover for the one moment of honesty obama has had in the last 3 years.

            Question Mr commie: Which do you think is more responsible for the success of Disney world? 1) The Interstate Highway System or 2) Walt Disney?

            Your answer is obviously the highways.

            The whole context of this was that people owe society the fruits of their labors because government made everything possible be creating the infrastructure first. Never mind that the government paid for those highways with our taxes already so now they are using them as an excuse to take even more from us.

            You didn’t raise this argument a week or so ago when I made the point that government doesn’t build the roads that private contractors do. You didn’t raise this excuse because the WH hadn’t thought of it yet. If what you claim was the truth then the WH would have offered it right away. They didn;’t you are a lying scumbag.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL don’t get so upset about what people say in a blog’s comment section, doofus. I won’t respond to the “fuck you” as a favor to you.

            Walt Disney is indeed more responsible for his own success than the government was. But Walt Disney World would not be the success it was, in my opinion, were it not for the Interstate Highway System, that’s pretty much undeniable. It probably would never have been built.

            Hey, I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but I’m not required, in any way, to respond to your points made on Wizbang. You know, sometimes I’m just not in the mood to play your games, Jim. Some days I don’t log on to Wizbang at all, and there are some threads I just don’t comment on when I do. Oh, and there’s also your buttbuddy Rodney, so if you made one of your silly paranoid “points” on one of his threads, I would be BARRED from responding.

          • jim_m

            Here;s a point dumbass: If we owe our success to the roads etc that government built then who paid for those roads? We did.

            Are we not then responsible for our own success? The statement from obama makes no sense unless he is taking credit for someone else’s work. Just like he has his whole life.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes, Jim, we all did, not just the “job creators.” lol.

          • jim_m

            Yep, and nobody benefited from the success of the business owner other than the business owner. Steve Jobs was the only person who EVER benefited from Apple. None of the jobs he created benefited anyone. None of the products that Apple made and sold benefited anyone. We should have confiscated his money and redistributed it to everyone else because what he made was wrong and exploitative of everyone else. We made his success possible and we never benefited from any of it.

            That is how ignorant you sound.

          • Brucehenry

            Throughout this thread you have claimed or implied that I was saying this or that, ignoring the plain meaning of my simple English sentences.

            It’s what you do, Jim. Take what someone has said and “interpret” it in the most outlandish and outrageous manner you can. You’re a hoot.

            I can’t take you seriously when you’re like this. Take a breath and get a grip. And enough with the “fuck you”s and “idiot”s.

          • jim_m

            You are claiming that obama was not saying that people were responsible for their own success. But then you defend that people would not be successful without the government. You are having it both ways. You’re being dishonest

            People are successful because they put the effort in themselves. Yes, we are successful because we advance beyond what people have done before us. We are successful by taking advantage of the successes of others and the things that others have done and left behind for us to use.

            You might as well say that we owe everything to the Catholic Church because without the university system that the church pioneered none of us would have had the education that made our success possible. Of course that is nonsense, just like obama’s claim that we owe anything to government because there are roads and bridges. We already pay taxes. We owe nothing more than that.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, it’s NOT exactly nonsense to say we owe much to the Catholic Church and its invention of universities. Of course it would be a huge stretch to say we owe “everything” to it, but again, it’s not nonsense.

            “We already pay taxes. We owe nothing more than that.” Yes, but if we don’t KEEP paying taxes, we WON’T have that infrastructure for much longer — it’s already crumbling.

            I can, indeed, have it both ways. Entrepeneurs are to be encouraged and applauded, incentivized and cheered. But entrepeneurs need a platform to start out on. If they can’t get their products to market, if they can’t hire an educated workforce, they will fail. How many Gateses and Zuckerbergs have come out of Somalia or Congo, or Ukraine or Albania? Know how come? No government, or not enough to provide stability, freedom from corruption, and infrastructure.

          • jim_m

            Then why are you not donating 10% of your income to the church? The point is that we do not owe the church for what was done years ago, just as we do not owe our government for work that was done years ago.

            You may have missed this in civics class (actually it’s pretty obvious that you did) but in America the people are supposed to be the government. We do not owe the government anything. We are self governing. We contribute not because we owe our rulers anything. We contribute because we are doing something for the common welfare. We do not have to be penalized because we are successful. We already have a VERY progressive tax code. Your claims that we owe for what the government has done are just a bunch of socialist crap. We already paid for what the government has done in the past. We don’t owe anything for that since we already provided for it.

          • Brucehenry

            There you go again.

            Hey, Jim, guess what happens to roads, bridges, airports, ports, etc when you stop maintaining them? And with a growing population, how will folks get to work (and where will they work) if we stop building new ones?

            I guess there’s no worries, because we “already provided for it.”

            We “owe” the church only in a cultural sense. We “owe” each other, in a more concrete sense, a decent society, and part of that decent society is infrastructure and enough government to provide it, along with national security.

          • jim_m

            We don’t “Owe” anything for the roads that are already built. We pay taxes to maintain them and to build new ones. The whole leftist BS that we owe anything for what the government has done in the past is just that: Bullshit.

            I am not arguing against paying axes,, You are trying to twist my words because you know that I am right that we do not owe the government for what has been previously done.

          • Who, Bruce, paid the majority – the vast overwhelming majority – of those taxes? And I know you are going to try to deflect, but you know very well what the answer is …

          • jim_m

            Hey idiot: DisneyLand opened in 1955. How do you think it was made a success when the Interstate Highway System was not begun until 1956?

            Wrong again. You are blinded by your ideological need to excuse obama’s greed.

          • Brucehenry

            Disneyland indeed opened in 1955, in densely populated Southern California, an area which already had an excellent freeway system.

            Walt Disney World, on the other hand, opened in 1971 in Orlando, right off I-4. I went to it the first month it opened, driving from Daytona Beach to Orlando, then a small city of about 100,000 souls, on said Interstate 4.

          • jim_m

            So you are claiming that no one from outside of California visited Disneyland? If it were not fabulously successful building the second park would never have happened. That success didn’t come from only the locals visiting it.

          • Brucehenry

            No, you’re right. Lots of people flew in, arriving safely due to our excellent air traffic control system.

            And neither I nor Obama nor Warren ever claimed, as you insist we did, that ONLY the government is SOLELY responsible for ALL of the success of any given businessman. They, and I, are merely saying that taxpayer support for infrastructure, public schools, etc. is and will remain necessary.

            Not communism. Not redistribution of wealth. Just “we’re all in this together.”

          • jim_m

            What a load of crap. Does anoyone think that roads are not necessary? The point is that the business person paid for the roads. Obama is not saying that the roads need to be maintained. Warren didn’t say that either. The point was that you couldn’t have a business if it were not for the government.

            These are not American values,

          • The freeways were being built in SoCal concurrently with D.L. The excellent system did not all exist. I remember the road from Riverside to Anaheim being a two lane highway.

          • jim_m

            The problem with the statement of “We all start out with///” is that you are demanding not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome. That is what Warren and obama want. It is what you want. Not everyone can be successful,m so just as obama told Joe the plumber, the government will take from those who are successful and give to those who aren’t so that the government can create an equality of outcome.

            That’s called communism. That is what you are defending. We didn;t get it wrong. WE didn’t misinterpret.We didn’t lie about what was said. THIS is exactly what obama meant. You are lying because the majority of Americans don’t want that and it is hurting obama that he spoke his mind. SO you want to rewrite history and claim that he meant something else and it is only racism that people are saying the he actually meant what he said.

            Screw you Bruce. The BIG LIE was a policy used in the last century by people even more unsavory than obama. Apparently the left hasn’t lost its love for that strategy.

          • TomInCali

            Your proclivity to begin your retorts with “idiot”, “fuck you”, and “dumbass” demonstrate how much confidence you have in their intellectual soundness. Either that or they demonstrate your poor language skills, which would explain why you are unable to understand clear English.

          • jim_m

            NO it merely demonstrates the contempt I have for your intelligence.

          • Brucehenry


          • jim_m


            the immediate predecessor noun to “You didn’t build that” is “a business”. “You didn’t build that” is most logically and grammatically referring to “a business”.

            If obama didn’t mean this then why did it take days and days for the WH to explain it? Why did they not correct it the very same day?

          • retired.military

            But you left out the part about people t hinking they are smart and work hard. Why say people built roads and bridges and then taLK about if you have a business you didnt build that. I mean it is blatantly obvious that unless you are in the road and bridge building business you didnt build them. But you helped pay for them and he gave no credit there at all. If he said, you didnt build that but you helped pay for them through your tax dollars than you would have a point. As it is you are spinning and trying to save Obama face.

          • jim_m

            Tom, if obama meant what he said then is it not logical to interpret what he said in light of the fact that Warren made the same remarks and her remarks were interpreted to say exactly what we are saying that obama meant?

          • TomInCali

            No, it is not logical to interpret one person’s remarks based on what another person said months earlier. Should we interpret what you say based on what other Wizbang commenters have said in the past?

          • jim_m

            YEs it is. If I say nearly the same thing as someone else and there is a reasonable expectation that I hear what that other person said, then it is a very reasonable conclusion that I meant either the exact same thing or something very close. Go read the posts from RM about where Barry and Fauxchahontas get their ideological BS. This comes from a common source. They meant what we have claimed they meant. This was a redistributionist and socialist rant from obama.

          • Obama’s inconvenient truth is bringing out the inconvenient truths of his apologists.

        • Vagabond661

          Faux outrage? Oh you mean like Chik-Fil-A.

  • GarandFan

    Well Hillary! ‘talked black’ on one occasion. Wonder what that meant.

  • 914

    4 years of Bull dung hasn’t changed the hardcore liberals minds?

    Oh well.. Now they can blame the greatest depression on Romney and leave the black man out of the equation..

  • jim_m

    Not only is the left unhappy that obama self identified as a communist claiming that the government owned everyone’s work product and success, but they are unhappy that Romney is having some impact with the message that it isn’t racist to vote against obama.

    The left is terrified that they will not be able to tar everyone opposing obama as a racist. obama being honest about his anti-capitalist and anti-American views doesn’t help.

  • You didn’t build that was Barry’s Michael Dukakis moment. Out of all of the crap that has been spoken by the one, this phrase has gotten the most traction. The day he uttered that phrase, he was toast and the Obamaites know it deep down in their hearts.

  • ackwired

    Some of this stuff is hard to follow. I go that Mit’s lie was OK because it made Obama angry. I got that the author heard a “black dialect”. I guess that somehow makes Obama a racist. Is that about the reasoning here?

    • jim_m

      Obama said the whole “You didn’t build that” thing. No amount of saying that he didn’t is going to change that. You and Bruce just look like jackasses trying to deny it. The only lack of reasoning abilities are on the left in trying to somehow justify the anti-American ideology of obama.

      • ackwired

        I haven’t heard anyone deny that he said it. But when you listen to the whole quote, it is obvious that the “it” he is referring to is the infrastructure that government supplies to make success in business possible. To suggest that he was saying that the entrepreneur did not build the business is very dishonest.

        • jim_m

          No it isn’t. That was the immediate reaction to what Warren said and it was the immediate reaction to what obama said. Suggesting that it is dishonest means hat people had to hear what was said and then think of how they could twist it. The reaction was wide spread and very uniform.

          The only part that has taken time to consider how to twist what was said is the left wing apology and explanation that obama didn’t mean what everyone has said that he did. THAT is the dishonest part. You are complaining about an honest reaction to is words and calling it a calculated lie. That is disgusting and false. The response from the left is what was calculated, not the initial reaction to obama’s statement.

          • ackwired

            Obviously we disagree. As a radical conservative you think that Obama meant to mislead in spite of what he said in plain english. As a moderate libertarian who thinks both conservatives and liberals have their vision skewed, I think that the conservatives are being quite4 dishonest on this one.

          • jim_m

            Go to the top where Vagabond has quoted obama’s words. They are plain and simple and the implication is also. If obama misspoke then he should be honest enough to say so. He hasn’t.

            The dishonesty is on the part of the left who took a week to figure out what they wanted obama to have meant and are now saying that everyone else who reacted immediately did so with some kind of calculation. That’s BS.

          • ackwired

            What I see right at the top is, “Mitt Romney’s plan of blatantly lying about President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech is clearly drawing blood.” If he admits it, why can’t you?

          • You idiot. Those are the words of Obama apologist Chait. Learn to read.

          • ackwired

            Thank you for being so kind to poinjt that out. If Chait is an “Obama apologist”, that does make the post a little easier to follow.

          • Brucehenry

            “Suggesting that it is dishonest means that people had to hear what was said and then think of how they could twist it.”

            It’s hilarious that you don’t know that the right has done EXACTLY that. This whole kerfuffle is made of whole cloth.

            Here’s a hint, Jim: Redstate, World Net Daily, Instapundit, etc etc are partisans. They exist precisely to do what you say it’s impossible to believe they’ve been doing.

          • jim_m

            Here’s a hint Bruce. I don’t read those blogs (Save instapundit and if you think that Glenn Reynolds is the same as World Net Daily, your are sorely mistaken). Take off the Media Matters commemorative tin foil hat and grasp the reality that many, many people reached the same conclusion about obama’s comment.

          • Brucehenry

            Of course you don’t, Jim, LOL.

  • Vagabond661

    “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.
    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.”

    When you put these three thoughts together, it’s pretty clear what he means:

    “look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”
    “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.”
    “If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that.Somebody else made that happen.”

    • jim_m

      That and the comment that “there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.” implies that you didn’t get your success because of hard work. If hard work were the means of success then everyone who worked hard would be successful.

      obama is arguing for equality of outcome. The scurrilous lies are those from Bruce and his lefty friends who claim that we are deliberately misinterpreting obama’s words. The meaning is right there, It took the WH a week to formulate an excuse and the lefties are buying it hook,line and sinker.

      • Brucehenry

        LOL, do you deny that there are millions of people who work hard all their lives, and play by the rules, and yet remain “unsuccessful” in the financial sense?

        • jim_m

          I know it to be true. And what should be done about that? Not one damned thing. I don’t owe them anything but a fair opportunity. Not equality of outcome.

          You want equality of outcome? They had that in the Soviet Union. That’s what you and obama are arguing for,. Thanks for finally admitting it. First honest comment you’ve made all day.

          • Brucehenry

            The line in the speech was about folks who claimed they are successful because they work harder than everybody else. They DO work hard, but hard work by itself doesn’t guarantee success. No one is calling for equality of outcome.

          • jim_m

            Then what was the point of saying that people work hard and don’t always meet with success and combining that with a comment about people who are successful and saying “You didn’t build that”?

            Yeah, I’m sure that the left wing audience was just celebrating the fact that they had equality of opportunity. obama has never suggested that what we need is more equality of outcome. He’s never suggested that at aome point you’ve made enough money and that what government should do is share your success with others who haven’t been so successful.

            You see, Bruce, the conclusion that obama is talking about equality of outcome is perfectly natural and arises from listening to what he has said for the last 4 years.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s perfectly natural if you’ve listened to everything he’s said through the prism of the rightwing blogosphere, as you have, Jim.

            I’m through with this thread, Jim. You insist that Obama meant something he plainly didn’t mean, because it is politically convenient for you for that to be true. But it’s not.

            However, no one will ever convince you to admit it, even though you know in your heart what the man was saying. Because despite all your bluster about communism and America-hatin’, you aren’t that stupid ,really. You just play a stupid guy on Wizbang.

          • jim_m

            Whatever, Bruce. Next you’ll be claiming that obama never said, “White folks’ greed runs a world in need”. You sit there and demand that every statement he says be understood in context but then you demand that all other statements be ignored. You want only a limited context that will aid you in deniability.

            obama was raised with communist influences. He went to school and sought out communist influences. He wrote a book filled with racist hate and envy. He worked alongside communists. He worshiped with a communist and a racist. He campaigned on a platform of equalization of outcomes. He is doing so again today.

            You want us to believe that he;s some moderate, but we look at the long history of his saying that the Constitution is seriously flawed and we say,”No, he’s not,” We look at the trail of statements and it is clear that he does not believe as we do. He does not believe in American exceptionalism. He has stated so publicly. We look at the history and we believe what he says at face value. We do not buy into his tortured explanations that come a week later after his polls tank.

            It;s just too convenient to hear him changing his tune after a week of repeating the same communistic crap.

          • If Obama meant the ‘roads and bridges’, then he should have used ‘those’ instead of ‘that’. So either he meant that the business owner didn’t create his success OR he has a real problem with subject/pronoun agreement. Are you ready, Bruce, to admit that Obama is a poor speaker with a miserable command of the English language?

          • retired.military

            Actually Obama is calling for equality of outcome IMO. Also it isnt just hard work it is a combination of hard work, timing and willingness to take a risk among other things.

          • They do succeed because they worked harder – just because not everyone gets the same results does not change the proximate cause of the success.

  • jim_m

    For those that have forgotten, this is what Elizabeth Warren said:

    Nobody got rich on their own. Nobody. People worked hard, they build a business, God bless, but they moved their goods on roads the rest of us helped build, they hired employees the rest of us helped educate, they plugged into a power grid the rest of us helped build,”

    The implication is that business owners are not part of “The rest of us” that business owners are parasites that contribute nothing and then exploitatively profiteer off of everyone else.

    The reality is that the business owner helped pay for those roads. The reality is that the business owner gave people jobs and income. The reality is that the products made by the business made people’s lives better. Warren and obama deny that reality. They demonize business and say that the business did not build those roads etc. Yes they did. As much as anyone else.

  • retired.military

    For you folks on the left who are defending Obama.


    THis shows were Warren and Obama both got their thoughts from.

    “Nobody makes a dollar in this country in business without using the common wealth…. The idea that there’s a self-made man, that’s there’s a self-made millionaire is false, it is absolutely false, and that is the thing that Obama missed…. Without this you don’t have those roads, you don’t have that internet, you don’t have the banking system”

    “There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone. He used taxpayer infrastructure. He got rich on what other taxpayers had paid for: the banking system, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and the judicial system, where nine-tenths of cases involve corporate law. These taxpayer investments support companies and wealthy investors. There are no self-made men! The wealthy have gotten rich using what previous taxpayers have paid for. They owe the taxpayers of this country a great deal and should be paying it back.”

    This is obviously saying that folks who are rich did so on the backs of everyone else and as such they need to spread their wealth around to be fair

    In short, they want to level not the playing field but the outcome

    Here are more youtube vidoes of Lakoff and his thoughts.


    • jim_m

      Notice that under this rationalization businesses and the rich do not contribute to the tax base. Tax payers paid for the infrastructure. Businesses did not contribute, but they have used that. Businessmen have not contributed but they have gotten rich from using the infrastructure. obama and his communist friends think that businessmen should now be punished for using these things that they have not contributed to. The inconvenient truth is that those rich businessmen were the ones that paid those taxes to build the freaking roads.

      Our lefty friends want to pretend that the poor paid the taxes that built the roads. Too bad that the progressive tax structure means that the rich paid to build the roads and they used those roads to become richer. Bruce and his lefty friends just want to lie about who paid for America’s infrastructure and who should own the wealth that people earn through their own labor.

  • retired.military

    From Bryon York column regarding Obama and his views on buiness


    Obama spent very little time in business, but he did have a job at a company called Business International for about a year after he graduated from Columbia University in 1983. The book contains new details about the future president’s brief stint in corporate America.Obama was a low-level editor in Reference Services, working on reports describing economic conditions in various foreign countries. By all accounts, he disliked the work, not just because it was pedestrian and boring, but because it was in business.“He calls it working for the enemy,” Obama’s mother, Ann, wrote after a phone conversation with her son, “because some of the reports are written for commercial firms that want to invest in [Third World] countries.”
    ….“Obama wrote a letter to his former girlfriend, Alex McNear, during that period, the last he would write to her. As in his telephone conversation with his mother, he expressed a distaste for the corporate world. He wrote Alex on Business International stationery, but crossed out the logo on the envelope and scribbled in his own address on West 114th Street.”
    ..“In his book Obama described B.I. as a ‘consulting house’ to multinational corporations. ‘I had my own office, my own secretary, money in the bank,’ he wrote. ‘Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors – see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand – and for a split second, I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve.’ It was an exaggeration to define B.I. as a consulting house. One of his former colleagues described it as ‘a small company that published newsletters on international business. . . . It was a bit of a sweatshop. . . . Sure we all wished we were high-priced consultants to internationals.’ Another called it ‘high school with ashtrays.’ Obama’s office was the size of a cubicle, barely large enough to fit a desk, and faced an interior hallway; he had no secretary, and the dress code was informal; people in his position rarely if ever wore suits. ‘He dressed like a college kid,’ said Lou Celi, who had an image in his mind’s eye of Obama coming to work now and then in white pants. One colleague remembered Obama wearing the same dark pants, nondescript shirt, and narrow tie day after day, like a uniform.”

    Gee looking at Obama, his words, and what people who knew him best say about him it seems he had a problem with business. That ties right in with scorn of businessmen who work hard and succeed in business. He thinks they didnt build that. Someone else did that for them.

    • jim_m

      His own family says that he viewed business as “the enemy”. What more can you say. He obviously hates business but don’t you dare call him anti-capitalist because then Bruce and his boot lickers will call you a liar.

  • retired.military

    To Bruce, and the other liberals.

    You say that we are not understanding Obama’s message and twisting his words. Now even if your premise was true (and it isnt) than why is that suddenly racist?

    • jim_m

      I don’t think the lefties realize how stupid they sound claiming that obama didn’t meant the straight forward interpretation of what he said.

      obama made the “You didn’t build that” speech in Roanoke on 7/13. His response claiming that his words were twisted came on 7/24, eleven days after the rest of the country was mocking him for his socialist/communist gaffe. It took him eleven days to realize that the polling was showing that what he said pissed people off. Only then did this meme of his words being twisted come out.

      Now we see that not only is he repeating the words of lizzy warren,but a radical left wing prof from Berkeley. SO not only are obama’s words and thoughts not original, but we have a context for them that confirms that how we understood them was exactly the correct interpretation.

      I find it instructive that even the Daily Kos back on 3/25 has acknowledged that the formulation from Warren, obama and Lakoff can be understood to ” on their face appear to be an “opposite value system” to the one Republicans have…”

      I think that in light of such a comment form a well known left wing site that Bruce, and tom and ackwired owe everyone an apology for their bullshit claims that we are lying about what obama has said when their fellow travelers were willing to admit that this was a logical interpretation and the whole charge of lying has come only after obama dropped 5 points behind Romney in the polls.

      • LiberalNightmare

        They realize how stupid they sound, they just think we are even stupider.

  • 914


  • 914

    “‘The key thing is that Obama is angry”

    Angry white men are terrible drinker’s, let alone workers…. Oh, wait! Barry is half black? lol.. Sorry.. I did not build this or that..!

  • Soft Spoken, Kansas accent???? Where the crap did this writer come up with that? ha ha ha ha

  • LiberalNightmare

    He’s black? But he’s so light skinned, and he has no negro dialect …


  • jim_m

    For all you who complain that we are lying about what the president said consider this: You are claiming that he is an ignorant fool who cannot complete a simple sentence correctly:

    As the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto noted, “that” necessarily referred to “a business,” not to “roads and bridges.”

    “…[N]ot only because ‘business’ is more proximate to the pronoun
    ‘that’ and therefore its more likely antecedent. The [Obama] 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.’

    “… [H]is campaign asks us to believe he is not even competent to construct a sentence.”
    Nevertheless, as the Register editorialized, “Whether you take his
    words at face value or prefer to infer he simply meant government can
    help businesses by building bridges and roads, the president’s speech
    was troubling. Implicit in the president’s message is that private
    individuals and privately held companies are not sufficient. Big
    Government is the engine that pulls the train, in his view.”

    So our super genius of a president has failed to yet master the English Language? Impressive. Either way you are also admitting that he is at best a socialist.

    You accuse us of twisting his words when it is the left who are twisting his words to avoid the ugly truth of what he said.

  • herddog505

    This would be easy enough to deal with:

    Barry simply needs to make ANOTHER commerical where he gazes earnestly out at the American people and says:

    “I misspoke in Roanoke [hey! that rhymes!]. When I said, ‘You didn’t build that’, I was referring to the country – our way of life, our laws, our shared values, and, yes, our roads, bridges and schools – that generations of Americans have, each in his own way, helped build, and that Americans today are continuing to build. I certainly did not mean that business people, from folks who run their businesses out of their homes to the founders and owners of our largest companies, do not deserve the credit for what they’ve accomplished. I understand that people who start a business work incredibly hard. They are usually the first ones in the morning and the last ones out in the evening. Many times, they pay the business – including their employees – before they pay themselves. They take risks and make sacrifices because they are pursuing a dream: they want to build their own business, to be their own boss, to create their own success. Their success helps put people to work and makes our country stronger. And the credit for that belongs to them.”

    But he’ll never say this because he doesn’t believe it and neither do the lackwits who support him. So, he and his minions will continue to try to convince everybody that he didn’t mean what he plainly said, and that anybody who says differently is hyperpartisan, stupid, and (wait for it!) RAAAAAAACIST.