Thursday, July 19, 2012

The "Out Of Context" Meme

The meme is what triggered my last post, but I want to expound a bit more.

I have to say it is with a bit of schadenfreude that I see our collectivist Alinsky-breathed brethren wincing at the ridicule (Alinsky Rule #5) pointed directly at them, as they are much more used to being the ones dishing it out.

I say this after looking at an anonymous commenter on this fun post (an extensive collection of "you didn't build that" posters ridiculing the President)
Anonymous said...
You are intentionally taking that out of context and you know it. Obama was talking about the roads and bridges, and critical infrastructure. The reason companies are able to be the economic engines they are today is because of government contractors building roads, etc.
Anonymous said...

context motherf*cker.
do you understand it?

So they're lashing back with "you took him out of context!!!!"

Well.  They never do that.   And frankly I don't like it when our side does it, and it does sometimes.   But not with anything like the frequency and force as their side does -- amplified through its many media channels.

Hey, Sarah Palin said she can see Russia from her house and she thinks that qualifies her to be Vice President.    Hahahahahaha!

Of course she said or argued nothing of the sort.  It was a small anecdotal detail in a larger argument that she did not, in fact, have zero foreign policy experience.   The state she governed bordered a pretty large and adversarial nation.   She had to be aware of, and practice -- diplomacy on that stage.

I watched the tape of Obama, and what he said the other day when he said "you didn't build that."   The "out of context" claim is that he was talking about the roads.   And he was.   But in the larger arena of his overall argument, even leaving the roads and bridges out, it's still in context.  the fact of the matter is is that he was using the fact that an individual successful person didn't build the roads to argue that, in fact, the successful person really didn't build his business.  Since the roads and bridges have been socialized, so must your profits be if you use them.  I'm sure they think they have a winning argument here, and a lot of people (suceptible to class warfare arguments) did buy it back when Elizabeth Warren yapped the same clap-trap out of her collectivist gap.

But the roads are there for everybody, not just the successful.   And the successful are successful because they provide something the public wants or needs, and we are willing to pay for it.   The roads that allow them to sell are the roads that allow us to buy. 

It's not like they just went out and hijacked the roads for themselves, nefariously delivering their goods and picking our pockets on their way out of town.  If the roads are there for everyone, why isn't everyone rich?  Hmmmm.... 

But what really built the roads is the market.  The market produced the money that was collected in taxes.  And most of the taxes are collected from ... the successful.  Hmmmm.....

On top of that, since roads have to go across property, the government pretty much has to be involved.   And it's not like there's a big government road building company out there.  No, the government is there to plan out where roads are going to go, who is going to have to move, and take care of the legal negotiations, and yes, We the People go ahead and give money to the government to build the roads.   Besides, very few roads are built exclusively for any single person's use, nor, in fact, for any group of people.  And those that are are typically built by those who wanted it in the first place.  It all kind of makes sense that the government is heavily involved in building roads that cut across multiple properties, multiple townships, multiple counties, and multiple states.   Imagine a single company trying to build a road - gaining the property rights  and handling the negotiations for the thousands or perhaps millions or tens of millions of people it will affect?

I've got no problem with the government building roads.  That's why I'm not a "L"ibertarian.  I use the lowercase, and as an adjective.

What Obama is doing here (and what Elizabeth Warren did and I'll bet you bucks to bagels that his words aren't far from his Communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis) is making yet another rationalization as to why he should be able to take more of other peoples' money from them.  It never ends.  They're constantly money mining -- and I'm not talking about just to keep paying for what they've done so far, but to pay for more and more and more and more stuff.  No amount of money will ever be enough.  If tomorrow all of the rich people just said "F*ck it, let's just give them what they're asking for today", the same leftists will still be demonizing them tomorrow with the same class warfare and same rationalization that your money is really our money -- to get yet additioal money do what they want to do tomorrow.   It will never.  Ever.  End.  Ever.

And what do they care?  It's not their money.  It's not like they have to budget or anything.

Maybe that's why they think the rich must be robbing somebody to be rich.  It's the only way we get our money, so ...

No comments: