Sunday, July 22, 2012

"I Meant Roads and Bridges"

Heh.   It must be having an effect on his campaign if he brought it up.
So, yeah, technically, that particular sentence which came out poorly in a grammatical sense... I buy he was refering directly to roads and bridges.  But it is quite clear from the full context around the sentence and the many times this argument has been made by him and his cohorts -- is that BECAUSE you didn't build the roads and bridges, and you USE the roads and bridges, we are justified in confiscating as much of your profits as we think is "fair".  In other words, "you didn't build that".   Huh.  Exactly the way it came out.
And they will never say how much that is, because if they get a dollar today, they'll want two tomorrow, and three the next day, and so on, and so on, and so on.
So at best, I'd call it a revealing slip of the tongue, what he and his academically infused ilk might perhaps call Freuedian.

Update:  This rather illustrative photo has been circulating.  North Korea builds roads, too.


Anonymous said...

Rush Limbaugh brought up today how lamont has put his foot in his mouth with the Roanoke comment regarding business owners. Lamont spoke of roads and bridges, and then said if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Now, this is coming from a HARVARD educated man??? “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you got a business, that -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Think about the grammar here, (forgetting that the word after “If” should have been “you’ve”) “…invested in roads and bridges. If you got a business, that -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen”, the reference to roads and bridges would necessitate that any alliteration to it would demand saying “you didn’t build THOSE”, right? The use of the word “that” indicates either lamont doesn’t understand the construction of a sentence in plain English, or he’s a LYING SACK OF (expletive deleted) when he says Romney is taking him out of context!

“…If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Someone else made that happen.” Just from a syntactical standpoint, wouldn’t it be more likely that a business would “happen” than a bridge to “happen”. There ARE businesses that seem to “happen”, but for DAMN sure there isn’t a bridge standing that “happened”… they are BUILT!!!!!!!!!

BTW… there are roads and bridges in North Korea and Cuber (with deference to Teddy (hic) Kennedy), so why don’t they have an economy on par with ours?

Here’s the Washington Times link to lamont’s Roanoke speech, just scroll down and click on it after the page opens up;

philmon said...

Oh, I completely agree with you. He was not taken out of context. As Romney said, the context makes it worse.

What I'm saying here is that I would buy that this was a very unsuccessful attempt at inserting requisite weasel language, and I can buy that -- in those TWO sentences, he might actually have been technically trying to phrase it in such a manner as to actually referring to the roads when he said "you didn't build that".

Even if he had said "those" instead of "that", though, the context clearly shows that the point he is trying to make is ... since everyone paid taxes for the roads we have the right to take whatever percentage of your profits we feel like taking this year.

That's HIS ultimate point. "Gimme your dough".

My ultimate point is that, giving him the benefit of the doubt on those two sentences ... when removed from the rest of the context, could have been a grammatical slipup of mister silver tongue ... ahem, Mr. Teleprompter, but the rest of the context makes it clear that even if it was a slipup, it was a revealing one -- and what it reveals is that he really thinks you didn't build that.

There's a a great double-photo illustrating our side of the argument that's been circulated. I just added it at the end of the post.