Obama - If you got wealthy, you didn't do it on your own

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

THE PLEDGE. Those who vote to raise taxes.

Yes, the pledge to not raise taxes. Your goalpost has moved:

Originally Posted by RandFan

The GOP spends a lot of time arguing about drowning govt in a bathtub.

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's going to be impossible to have a discussion if you will only argue against straw men.

I refer you to the above quote.

Quote:

Zig, could you focus on my arguments and not your straw men? I only claim that Norquist came up with a pledge that the idiotic GOP (many in the GOP) signed and Norquist has held over their heads.

You have claimed more than that. If you are no longer claiming more than that, then I will take that as a retraction of your former claim quoted above.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes, the pledge to not raise taxes. Your goalpost has moved:

What are you talking about?

Quote:

I refer you to the above quote.

And? Seriously, what are you talking about?

Quote:

You have claimed more than that. If you are no longer claiming more than that, then I will take that as a retraction of your former claim quoted above.

What in the sam hell are you talking about? Slow down Zig. Take a deep breath. You are conflating and confusing things. So go back and read what was actually written.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

What are you talking about?

You don't remember why we're even talking about Norquist in the first place? It was your claim, which I just quoted. Norquist was your justification for that claim. And now it seems he isn't even that anymore.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You don't remember why we're even talking about Norquist in the first place? It was your claim, which I just quoted. Norquist was your justification for that claim. And now it seems he isn't even that anymore.

• I haven't forgotten a damn thing.
• You've no idea what we are even talking about at the moment.
• What "claim"?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

[*]I haven't forgotten a damn thing.

You sure fooled me.

Quote:

[*]You've no idea what we are even talking about at the moment.

Yeah, I think I do.

Quote:

[*]What "claim"?

Weren't you paying any attention? The claim that "The GOP spends a lot of time arguing about drowning govt in a bathtub."

But that's not true, is it? As far as I can tell (and no evidence to the contrary has been presented) the only person to say that is Norquist, and he only ever said it once. So how precisely did we go from only Norquist to the entire GOP, and only once to "a lot of time"?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Weren't you paying any attention? The claim that "The GOP spends a lot of time arguing about drowning govt in a bathtub."

Dude, that was an off handed remark. Rhetorical. Not some absolute claim I felt needed defending. I had no idea you had your panties in a bunch over such a remark.

Quote:

But that's not true, is it?

It's true that the GOP wants a small govt (or "smaller" govt). Are you honestly going to deny that Republicans constantly call for a small govt? Seriously?

Quote:

As far as I can tell (and no evidence to the contrary has been presented) the only person to say that is Norquist, and he only ever said it once. So how precisely did we go from only Norquist to the entire GOP, and only once to "a lot of time"?

You are talking things FAR TOO literal. My point about drowning the govt in the bathtub was not meant to mean that every Republican who talked about small govt used that language. Come on Zig.

[RandFan]

Drown government in a bathtub results in over 2M hits.

One last thing, if the GOP doesn't agree with Norquist then why the hell did they sign his asinine pledge? Drowning govt was the rhetoric Norquist used to sell his pledge. If that's so offensive to Republicans then why go along with it?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Dude, that was an off handed remark. Rhetorical. Not some absolute claim I felt needed defending. I had no idea you had your panties in a bunch over such a remark.

In other words, you were just making crap up, and didn't expect to get called on it. Got it.

Perhaps you should let ANTPogo know. He kind of stuck his neck out trying to defend what you said, and probably didn't know you didn't intend to stand by it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

One last thing, if the GOP doesn't agree with Norquist then why the hell did they sign his asinine pledge?

I presume they signed the pledge because they agree with the content of the pledge. That's usually how these things work. If it's not in the pledge, then signing the pledge doesn't commit them to it. I thought that was obvious. Why wasn't that obvious?

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Drown government in a bathtub results in over 2M hits.

One last thing, if the GOP doesn't agree with Norquist then why the hell did they sign his asinine pledge? Drowning govt was the rhetoric Norquist used to sell his pledge. If that's so offensive to Republicans then why go along with it?

Do you think the 2,000,000 hits mean anything? Google 911 was an inside job.

They signed the pledge, probably because they are against more taxes.

[Wangler]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

In Norquist's specific goals and intentions for it.

Let me finish that for you:

"In Norquist's specific goals and intentions for it, which are not at all represented in the actual text of the pledge, making any direct link between the two conjectural and hypothetical."

Quote:

Again, if you don't like this, take it up with Norquist and his supporters. It's their idea, after all.

Why don't you just answer the question: do you equate not raising taxes with shrinking government?

As the pledge only talks about not raising taxes, and you continue to insist the pledge is actually about shrinking government, it certainly seems as if you equate not raising taxes with shrinking government.

So, do you view shrinking government and not raising taxes as being one in the same?

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Wangler

Let me finish that for you:

"In Norquist's specific goals and intentions for it, which are not at all represented in the actual text of the pledge, making any direct link between the two conjectural and hypothetical."

You misspelled "In Norquist's specific goals and intentions for it, which he has spoken about candidly and openly, making any direct link between the two something that Norquist has stated outright."

Hope that helps.

Quote:

Why don't you just answer the question: do you equate not raising taxes with shrinking government?

Because you're directing your question at the wrong person in an attempt to dodge the explicit statements of the creator of the pledge himself.

Quote:

As the pledge only talks about not raising taxes, and you continue to insist the pledge is actually about shrinking government, it certainly seems as if you equate not raising taxes with shrinking government.

So, do you view shrinking government and not raising taxes as being one in the same?

"Starve the beast" is not something I came up with, so I have no idea why you expect me to defend it.

[Wangler]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Hope that helps.

No, it doesn't. I still don't see how you get this link from the actual text of the pledge. You somehow think that the pledge is for something other than what is actually in the text of the pledge. But, how does that work? That means the pledge: "I pledge to get to work on time" could mean anything!

Quote:

Because you're directing your question at the wrong person in an attempt to dodge the explicit statements of the creator of the pledge himself.

No, my question is to the right person: How do you, ANTPogo, get shrinking government from a pledge to not increase taxes? That is your assertation. It is up to you to provide proof. Hint: Saying that Norquist has been trying to link the two concepts since he was 12 years old is not proof of your assertation.

Quote:

"Starve the beast" is not something I came up with, so I have no idea why you expect me to defend it.

I don't expect you to defend it. I expect you to defend your assertation that the pledge specifically leads to shrinking government. You have yet to do so, and show no inclination to try. I must assume, therefore, that your original asseration is a non-starter.

I haven't even touched on your assertation that anyone who signed the pledge is either, crazy, stupid, or in cahoots with some sinister plot. One step at a time.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Do you think the 2,000,000 hits mean anything? Google 911 was an inside job.

They signed the pledge, probably because they are against more taxes.

I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with such a pledge. It simply provides public information on the attitude about taxes for those who sign and don't sign it.

Don't we want to know what the politicians think?

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Wangler

No, it doesn't. I still don't see how you get this link from the actual text of the pledge. You somehow think that the pledge is for something other than what is actually in the text of the pledge.

If by "somehow" you mean "because the guy who created and is pushing the pledge flat-out says so".

You seem to have real difficulty with that concept, and I'm not quite sure why.

Quote:

Hint: Saying that Norquist has been trying to link the two concepts since he was 12 years old is not proof of your assertation.

It's certainly proof that Norquist thinks there's a connection between the two concepts.

Quote:

I don't expect you to defend it. I expect you to defend your assertation that the pledge specifically leads to shrinking government. You have yet to do so, and show no inclination to try.

It's not my assertion that the pledge specifically leads to shrinking government. It's Norquist's. The fact that pledge ends up doing the opposite of what Norquist intends it to do is the problem with Norquist's plan (and the GOP support of his plan).

So, if you're against the idea that refusing to raise taxes under any circumstances will lead to a reduction in government spending and a shrinking of the size of government, I suggest you write to your Congressman and urge them to reject Grover Norquist's plan and refuse to sign his pledge.

Quote:

I haven't even touched on your assertation that anyone who signed the pledge is either, crazy, stupid, or in cahoots with some sinister plot. One step at a time.

You could have just typed "Republican politician" there and saved yourself some time.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes you are. You accused me of claiming Obama never graduated law school, when I did nothing of the sort. And then you tried to defend your error.



But it's not the definition I meant, which should have been obvious given my use of the term "credentialed". If he hadn't graduated, calling him "credentialed" wouldn't make any sense. So when faced with multiple possible definitions, you chose the one which made no sense, rather than the one which did. You didn't even ask if I really meant what you thought I meant. And then you blamed me for your error.



The definition I used is the same as your source gave.



That's not how communication works. When a word has multiple meanings, you're supposed to determine which meaning the speaker intended. Which you failed to even attempt, and then tried to defend your decision not to do that.



"you and I" have a misunderstanding? No, just you.



That would satisfy me. And you should have offered that from the beginning when I made it clear how wrong your initial reply was. But you didn't. And you aren't yet.



I'm ignoring a standard definition? No. I'm just not using one of several standard definitions. But nothing obligates me to use the standard definition of your choosing after the fact.



Sure you do. The proof is that you've just been doing exactly that.



It's crap like this that makes me think any apology you might offer wouldn't be sincere. I'd still accept one even if it wasn't honestly meant, but this post sure as hell isn't one.



The irony of you accusing me of judgmentalism and close-mindedness when you've got no real idea of what I think is stunning.



Yeah, that really sounds like someone who would have offered an apology, if only I would have accepted. indeed.

In that response did you just criticize a fellow poster for choosing to view something you posted using the least sensible possible interpretation of your words?

Do you appreciate the irony of that?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

In that response did you just criticize a fellow poster for choosing to view something you posted using the least sensible possible interpretation of your words?

Do you appreciate the irony of that?

No, he didn't. It was totally clear what Zig meant from the start.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by steve s

I haven't read through this entire thread so excuse me if this has been posted.

Here's Mitt Romney telling Olympians at the Salt Lake games that they didn't get there on their own...

(skip ahead to 1:40)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Steve S

Transcript: "You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. "

Notice how he uses the word "those" correctly, since he is referring multiple items.

"If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Notice how BO used "that" twice, obviously referring to "business" not "roads and bridges".

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Neally

"If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Notice how BO used "that" twice, obviously referring to "business" not "roads and bridges".

However, "this unbelievable American system" (which consists of things like roads and bridges and the Internet) is a "that", and it's what Obama was referring to.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

However, "this unbelievable American system" (which consists of things like roads and bridges and the Internet) is a "that", and it's what Obama was referring to.

Yes, of course he was referring to something mentioned 2 sentences earlier, not the item in the very same sentence.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Neally

Yes, of course he was referring to something mentioned 2 sentences earlier, not the item in the very same sentence.

No, he was mentioning the thing he was talking about in that entire paragraph, in sentences both before and after the one you keep dishonestly ripping from its context.

Rarely have I seen anyone so loudly and repeatedly proclaim their inability to parse a simple paragraph as I've seen in this thread. No wonder the military tests for Paragraph Comprehension in its potential recruits; it's apparently a rare skill among their primary supporting demographic.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Rarely have I seen anyone so loudly and repeatedly proclaim their inability to parse a simple paragraph as I've seen in this thread.

The only thing I'm proclaiming is the simple in-sentence, plainly stated meaning of what BO said, and rarely have I seen anyone so loudly, repeatedly, and comically contort a statement to try to explain the real meaning in order to try to minimize the damage from yet another foot in mouth episode.

[Olowkow]

Some of us have extensive experience, i.e. advanced degrees, with languages and linguistics including theoretical syntax. "That" may in fact refer to things in the aggregate such as the following:

"Johnny likes to build bridges and roads with his legos...just look at that!"

If Obama had meant "You didn't build 'it'", I suspect he would have said "it" to refer unambiguously to "business".

The usage has been explained as being ambiguous (look it up if you don't know what that means), with the favored reading a result of context.

This is getting boring.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Neally

The only thing I'm proclaiming is the simple in-sentence, plainly stated meaning of what BO said,

No, you're not.

There's a very good reason you're extracting that single sentence from its paragraph. Because the utter falsity of your claim becomes blatantly apparent otherwise.

[daenku32]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

This is getting boring.

Hey, there is a "Obama hates small business" talking point to push. Got to do repetition to get it to stick.

[Snide]

Originally Posted by Neally

"If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Notice how BO used "that" twice, obviously referring to "business" not "roads and bridges".

No, it is not obvious, and in fact is obvious when you listen to the speech that you are dead wrong. Laughably wrong (except that people still believe it).

[Wangler]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

No, it was a label for a strategy to reduce government spending until government was reduced enough to be safely killed off, instead of attempting to eliminate it right away......A strategy that pretty much the entire GOP has signed on to.

Here you are stating that those who signed the pledge have signed on to a strategy to reduce government spending. The pledge says nothing about reducing government spending, so your assertation is false and misleading.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Virtually every Republican has signed this pledge.

Now, whether you think the Republicans who signed his pledge are ignorant, deluded, pandering, or totally on board with Norquist's plan is entirely up to you.

Here you assume that those who signed the pledge are totally on board with Norquist's plan, or they ignorant, deluded, or pandering. I can't see how you would possibly have proof of this assertation, so your assertation is false and misleading.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I already told you that the GOP signers of the pledge could have done it out of ignorance, delusion, or pandering instead of being completely on board with the plan (even counting just ones who have actually stuck to their pledge).

Another false and misleading asseration by you, ANTPogo.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Norquist's pledge is the how of his plan.

Please, please, please demonstrate, in concrete terms, how a pledge to not increase government spending actually decreases government spending. If you cannot, this asseration is false and misleading.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

No. For the third time, the GOP signers of the pledge could have done it out of ignorance, delusion, or pandering instead of being completely on board with the plan. The fact remains, they still signed the pledge.

Yet another false and misleading asseration by you, ANTPogo.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

It's not my assertion that the pledge specifically leads to shrinking government.

And, of course, another false and misleading statement from ANTPogo.

I think we are done here, as you are all lies and obfuscation.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by daenku32

Hey, there is a "Obama hates small business" talking point to push. Got to do repetition to get it to stick.

It sure seems to be the case, but I get the impression he may in fact think he genuinely has a point. What I don't understand though is why he does not acknowledge the fact that the utterance in this case is ambiguous, and that the pronoun "that" may grammatically have a referent that is plural, but viewed semantically as singular, an aggregate of things.

What I view as most interesting is the sheer fact that purely linguistic issues can become so simplistically contentious when arguing for a point of view. The readily apparent solution should be, "Oh, ambiguous, of course, I didn't get the second reading at first."

Then, I could understand a poster still maintaining his intransigence by insisting that the reading was as he claims it to be, and not the other, because such and such...

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In other words, you were just making crap up, and didn't expect to get called on it. Got it.

End the end you just can't help yourself. No Zig. Does it ever occur to you that playing "gotcha" is really douchey?

Quote:

Perhaps you should let ANTPogo know. He kind of stuck his neck out trying to defend what you said, and probably didn't know you didn't intend to stand by it.

ANTPogo was defending the idea that the GOP is engages in "smaller govt" rhetoric. ANTPogo was right and you are being absurd.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I presume they signed the pledge because they agree with the content of the pledge. That's usually how these things work. If it's not in the pledge, then signing the pledge doesn't commit them to it.

Don't sign a pledge from someone who claims that the reason for the pledge is to shrink govt so small it could be drowned in a bathtub. If you don't believe that. How dumb are these people signing this pledge?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

Do you think the 2,000,000 hits mean anything?

Absolutely it does. It's a meme. To argue that smaller govt isn't part of the GOP zeitgeist is patently false.

Quote:

Google 911 was an inside job.

I didn't argue ad populum. I'm arguing that it's a meme.

Quote:

They signed the pledge, probably because they are against more taxes.

Which means what? No, seriously. This is the most idiotic of memes. "More than what"? Why can't people be honest enough to admit that they have no idea what the optimal amount of taxes should be. We can lower taxes but we can't raise them even to pay for expensive wars?

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

What I don't understand though is why he does not acknowledge the fact that the utterance in this case is ambiguous, and that the pronoun "that" may grammatically have a referent that is plural, but viewed semantically as singular, an aggregate of things.

What I view as most interesting is the sheer fact that purely linguistic issues can become so simplistically contentious when arguing for a point of view. The readily apparent solution should be, "Oh, ambiguous, of course, I didn't get the second reading at first."

Indeed. It is rather odd how few people say "It could mean either, it probably means roads & bridges".

Some of us do:

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The antecedent of "that" is "roads and bridges". applecorped left out the first sentence to make it appear that the antecedent of "that" is "a business".[ . . . ]

To be fair, the headline writer left it out too. And it is quote-twisting.

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Instead of saying "'you didn't build that' referred to roads and bridges", [the Obama campaign] attempt to say that it is unquestionable that this is what it refers to.

So unquestionable that every Democrat voter sees it that way and every Republican voter sees it the other way.

However, what they want to say is that Obama was referring to roads and bridges. Which he probably was.

But what probably covers 97% of views in this thread is either of:

1--There is no way "that" could have referred to "a business"

or

2--There is no way "that" could have referred to "roads and bridges"

Purveyors of either of these stances in this thread are dishonest. Thus, almost all the thread participants here are dishonest. (I love making friends . . . )

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Neally

As I mentioned before, no tax increases means you want the US to become Somalia.

Indeed it does:

Originally Posted by Tricky

Take a close look at the countries with small governments, like Somalia. Ask yourself if that sort of thing is your goal.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by RandFan

End the end you just can't help yourself. No Zig. Does it ever occur to you that playing "gotcha" is really douchey?

Remembering what you said and expecting you to stand behind your words is playing "gotcha"? Or is it simply "gotcha" if you no longer find your past statements convenient but don't want to actually retract them?

I really don't get your standards.

Quote:

ANTPogo was defending the idea that the GOP is engages in "smaller govt" rhetoric.

No, he was doing more than that. He was defending your claim about the GOP wanting to drown government in a bathtub.

Quote:

ANTPogo was right and you are being absurd.

ANTPogo was wrong, and you can't stand behind your own words.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Wangler

Here you are stating that those who signed the pledge have signed on to a strategy to reduce government spending. The pledge says nothing about reducing government spending, so your assertation is false and misleading.

They've all signed on with Norquist's pledge. Norquist himself says his pledge is part of a plan to reduce government spending via his "starve the beast" strategy.

Originally Posted by Wangler

Here you assume that those who signed the pledge are totally on board with Norquist's plan, or they ignorant, deluded, or pandering. I can't see how you would possibly have proof of this assertation, so your assertation is false and misleading.

Well, since it's pretty much indisputable that the signers of Norquist's pledge did, indeed, sign Norquist's pledge, the only question is whether they read any of Norquist's comments about the purpose of the pledge before they signed.

Originally Posted by Wangler

Another false and misleading asseration by you, ANTPogo.

You leave my asseration out of this!

Originally Posted by Wangler

Please, please, please demonstrate, in concrete terms, how a pledge to not increase government spending actually decreases government spending. If you cannot, this asseration is false and misleading.

Again, its called "starve the beast" (also often described as "kill the taxes and you kill the government"). Basically, the idea is that if you cut the revenue stream to the government (either by cutting taxes - the "hard" method, or by refusing to increase taxes - the "soft" method), one of two things will happen. Either government will voluntarily cut its spending to avoid deficits, or deficits will increase to the point that the government will be forced to cut its spending. Either way, spending will eventually be cut.

As this article notes,

Quote:

In many respects, ultimate empirical resolution of the starve-the-beast debate is irrelevant to its political implications. The data are sufficiently ambiguous that studies, especially of the informal sort that proliferate on Capitol Hill, can always be generated to support the political preferences or demands of the moment.

One such study was done by economists Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, and Christopher Frenze in 1987. They concluded that higher taxes actually had led to higher deficits because each dollar of tax increase led to an increase in spending of $1.58. In other words, the deficit rose by fifty-eight cents for each dollar of tax increase. This study was significant because Ronald Reagan cited a version of it in a radio address on October 24, 1987 (Reagan 1989, 1231).

In the 1988 campaign, George H. W. Bush endorsed the modified starve-the-beast theory that tax increases feed spending and are ineffective in reducing the deficit. “Unless you can control Congress’s spending, increased revenues will go to increased spending,” he declared in his May 14 remarks at the Intel Corporation in Portland, Oregon (text of speech in my possession).

On Capitol Hill as well, the modified starve-the-beast theory made inroads even among moderates who had previously supported tax increases to reduce budget deficits. After taking so much political heat, many members of Congress were apparently dismayed to see that so little progress was accomplished toward permanent resolution of the deficit problem. One of these legislators was Senator Bob Packwood (R-Ore.), who during floor debate on Bill Clinton’s proposed tax increase in 1993 said: “The history of the U.S. Government is that when we increased taxes, we spent them; we did not apply it to the deficit. It does not matter that the President has stated, ‘Let us have a deficit reduction trust fund.’ We have never followed that; we instead spent it. I predict that if we raise these new taxes, we will spend them, also. We will not cut spending. We will spend it on new programs or expansion of existing programs” (Congressional Record, May 18, 1993, p. S5987).

Ronald Reagan endorsed this soft version of the starve-the-beast theory in a Wall Street Journal op-ed article that same year. He now essentially disowned all of the budget deals he had signed into law, saying he had been double-crossed into supporting tax increases in return for spending cuts that never emerged.

Quote:

Despite the “assurances,” “promises,” “pledges” and “commitments” you are given, the spending cuts have a way of being forgotten or quietly lobbied out of future budgets. But the tax increases are as certain to come as, well, death and taxes.

In 1982, Congress wanted to raise taxes. It promised it would cut federal spending by $3 for every $1 in new taxes. Being a new kid in town, I agreed to this. Unfortunately, although the new taxes went into effect, Congress never cut spending by even a penny. (Reagan 1993)

Norquist obviously prefers the "hard" starve-the-beast approach of tax cuts to force spending cuts, but he's perfectly happy in the short-term to use his tax pledge as part of a "soft" starve-the-beast approach. It's just a little slower, that's all.

[EDIT: In fact, Norquist's comments just last month are virtually identical to the "soft" starve-the-beast sentiments expressed by Senator Packwood quoted above:

Quote:

"Politicians often promise that if you give them more money they'll pay down the debt with it," Mr. Norquist told reporters. "In point of fact when you give politicians more money they spend it."

]

Originally Posted by Wangler

I think we are done here, as you are all lies and obfuscation.

Suit yourself.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Indeed. It is rather odd how few people say "It could mean either, it probably means roads & bridges".

Some of us do:





But what probably covers 97% of views in this thread is either of:

1--There is no way "that" could have referred to "a business"

or

2--There is no way "that" could have referred to "roads and bridges"

Purveyors of either of these stances in this thread are dishonest. Thus, almost all the thread participants here are dishonest. (I love making friends . . . )

And when unsure of a statement's meaning, to whom should one look to for clarification of said meaning?

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Indeed. It is rather odd how few people say "It could mean either, it probably means roads & bridges".

Some of us do:





But what probably covers 97% of views in this thread is either of:

1--There is no way "that" could have referred to "a business"

or

2--There is no way "that" could have referred to "roads and bridges"

Purveyors of either of these stances in this thread are dishonest. Thus, almost all the thread participants here are dishonest. (I love making friends . . . )

I generally reserve the term "dishonest" for those who have not made an attempt to see both sides, but I feel few in this thread actually have understood the problem.
Trying to make a claim that is based on some obscure linguistic point is not easy. As every linguist knows, every speaker is an "expert" on his native language.
I am always honestly amazed at how humans ever communicate at all without massive and disastrous continuous misunderstandings.

What is particularly maddening is that I keep hearing, even NBC, defending the "business...that" reading as if they haven't even been paying attention. I forgot his name, but filling in for Maddow.

Chris Matthews at least saw the problem immediately, and he explained it on his program, smart guy.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

And when unsure of a statement's meaning, to whom should one look to for clarification of said meaning?

The speaker of course. Not that anyone waited for that. And as quoted, that "clarification" was guilty of the same inability to acknowledge prior ambiguity too.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Olowkow

I generally reserve the term "dishonest" for those who have not made an attempt to see both sides

You got it in one. That is what almost everybody does in this section.

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Distracted1

And when unsure of a statement's meaning, to whom should one look to for clarification of said meaning?

That's a really good question. I usually go to the blogs I trust, and discuss with friends whose judgment I can rely on. Generally, I am able to disambiguate and make a determination based on general intonation, stress and other non verbal/visual clues. Sometimes one cannot determine what was meant, and the utterance just fades away. I recall, "That's one small step for....man," etc.