IS IT TRUE July 20, 2012

1. SUPPORT OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

   CONTINUE TAKING IT TO THEM CHIEF BOLIN!

2. To accept that entrepreneurship only exists in concert with government roads, bridges, and education is to forget what Americans accomplished in all the years BEFORE the Federal Income Tax, before Federal highways, and before government run school systems.

   Before about 1913, everything Americans did was either through private entrepreneurship or through local government apparatus. The few large national projects were privately funded by the issuance of bonds. There were few “streets” to speak of. Only the highest traffic areas in a city got brick pavement and sewers. Everywhere else remained dirt roads, but guess what…this is the environment that produced the automobile.

   Henry Ford didn’t go crawling to the Federal Government asking for a grant to get started, nor the Wright Brothers, nor Harley-Davidson, nor Coca-Cola, nor any of the myriad other American companies that sprang up in that period from the genius of creative men.

   The Trans-Continental Railroad was built by private hands in a time before an income tax, before the Federal Government got the bright idea that they owned the fruits of our labor and could take as much of it as they pleased. Government gave the railroad some land and issued bonds bough by private investors. The land given was originally purchased or stolen from French or Indians with, again, support from private bond holders.

   So in this “which came first, the government or entrepreneur” argument, the answer is more than clear. Private entrepreneurs created the American government. They created and funded the explosion of progress during the Industrial Revolution, and they are responsible for the government’s very ability to operate. The hubris required for a President of the United States to not only forget that fact but actually ATTACK small business owners in this fashion just goes to show how close we are to the precipice of dictatorship in this country and how far we’ve strayed from the can-do, self-reliant spirit of our ancestors.

   I do not like living in fear. I think the politics of fear is particularly disgusting, but God help us if this continues much further.

   • “I do not like living in fear. I think the politics of fear is particularly disgusting, but God help us if this continues much further.”

     ———————————–

     Brad…..

     I could not agree with you more, your comments and observations are as always dead on. It’s sad to say that your (my) greatest fear in life is that our current president will be reelected and move us further down this path, but at my age I have very little faith left in any political system, either side, or just bureaucrats in general to have the ability to solve anything…the signs are everywhere and it won’t be pretty but it will add a few pages to our history books.

     At this point in time I’ll put my faith in God…..hopefully he won’t forsake us in our hour of need, sadly there are the oblivious that don’t see what is on the road or path up ahead, might be better that way…who knows?

     JMHO

   • Is it true that the transcontinental railroad was not built without government assistance? That it was railroad federal legislation in 1862 that enabled the transcontinental railroad with massive land grants? That the federal government granted the Union Pacific and Central Pacific 400-foot-wide rights-of-way plus ten square miles of land for every mile of track built?

     Is it true that because the resale value of the land could not support the entire venture, so in 1864, the federal government enlarged the land grants from ten miles each side of the rail to twenty miles? That additionally the federal government helped finance the transcontinental railroad with 30-year bonds? That the government set up a scheme whereby the railroads were loaned $16,000 per mile for construction across flat land, $32,000 per mile for hilly terrain, and $48,000 per mile for mountain construction, and that was in 1860s era dollars? That there are many other examples of pre-1913 government-assisted private enterprise empire success stories?

     • I already addressed that. Read again what I said.

       The land the government “owned” had to first be stolen from Native Americans or purchased from France. The Louisiana Purchase was largely funded, again, by private investors purchasing government bonds.

     • Also notice that in this Transcontinental Railroad example, government is actually returning “government land” to private hands, showing at least some understanding that it is private enterprise that can build and operate the railroad, populate the West, and grow the country. They weren’t so arrogant to believe they could or should do everything.

       For the opposite example, see the Robert’s Stadium debacle where our esteemed local government officials think they know best, and the only options ever put on the table include their continued ownership of a prime piece of real estate that has outlived its civic usefulness and should have been considered surplus to be auctioned off.

       • Is it true that when the federal government “returned” land west of the Mississippi to railroad companies, it was not “returned” into the “private hands” from which it came? That no private entity owned that land prior to the government giving it to the railroad empire builders for their own private enterprise, which private enterprise sold it for profit, and returned nothing to the aboriginal inhabitants other than a land laid completely bare of the sources of sustainance previously enjoyed by the aboriginal inhabitants?

         • If you want to argue for aboriginal land rights, that is an entirely different debate I would LOVE to have sometime seeing as the progenitor of their destruction was enabled through government use of force and state-sanctioned genocide, but if you want to stick to the issue at hand – the one wherein I’m arguing the source of American industrial, technological and manufacturing progress and expansion was entreprenurially based – you really need to stop going off on this tangent and address the fact that there was no income tax, yet our country somehow managed the greatest explosion of progress in these areas of any time in history.

           Your move.

   • In the last 300 years there has been a lot of conversation and bloodshed over how modern governments should rule. Our forefathers designed our system to avoid the pitfalls of both a Kingship and an anarchy (the purest form of democracy)…. Three equal power branches of government and an electoral college elective system. Our current President seems to fit best into the classic position associated with the Royalist, so again we battle with the King who would have us all answer to his rule…. he is attempting to hijack our system by building an elective base among the healots and serfs of our modern society and working against those who build transportable wealth …. King George 111 attempted to deny the merchants their tools of trade by manipulating the money supply… it did not work. The battle that our President is waging is not new… it is classic and has seldom turned out well for the systems that sucome to it’s deceptive lure. We shall see if a nation conceived in liberty can again fight off those who would deny it.

     • You’re absolutely right. Anyone with a modicum of historical perspective will understand just how rare and fragile a thing Republican Liberty is in the scheme of things. Ask the French people how quickly a well-meaning mob-rule revolution can devolve into tyranny worse than the one you just overthrew.

       Plenty of examples exist of nations who destroyed their currency in the stated interest of the “common good” and reaped the wages of such decisions. France is just one example.

       http://mises.org/books/inflationinfrance.pdf

3. …and by the way, the President of the United States has about the same role “in the dugout” of the job creation game as a mentally challenged, ceremonial bat boy.

   The POTUS is not responsible for “creating” jobs. His role is simple… When a REAL player hits the ball and runs the bases – to continue the metaphor – his job is to simply grab the thrown bat and stand dutifully OUT OF THE F-ING WAY. 😉

4. Is it true that when a news outlet places words within quotation marks, they are placing those words in a person’s mouth? That when the CCO quotes President Obama as saying American entrepeneur “did not build their businesses,” it would be nice for CCO also to give the source of the quotation, or even give the quotation in its entirety?

   Is it true that what President Obama actually said was, “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back … 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 … The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet?”

   So is it true that while President Obama, within a long, rambling, off-the-cuff delivery of campaign stump remarks, in fact did utter the words “you didn’t build that,” fact is those four words must be taken in context with the rest of his rambling dialog? That for CCO to editorialize simply upon those four words, simply mimics the tactics of FOX News and hundreds of other right leaning bloggers, which one already can obtain in aces on the Internet.

   • Izzy…

     I think when it comes to national news, most folks have already read or heard the entire quote long before the CCO wrote the story, keep in mind I’m assuming this and can’t speak for the CCO…..

     Now that we are past the semantics , how do you feel about what Mr Obama said? do you feel there is any truth to the statement either in context or out of context?

     Before you turn this around and ask me….I think it has to be the dumbest piece of garbage to ever fall from a politicians lips, it shows how little he knows about business (small business in general), it also to me shows the deep seated hatred he has for our capitalistic system, to me it also shows that he is pandering to the audience and instilling a mindset that without him (big government) nothing is possible but through him everything is possible.

     In his defense all he’s doing is vocalizing what the common thoughts and beliefs are in DC held by every politician residing there….sad, very sad.

     But then it is JMHO

     • Is it true that Izzy agrees with your basic premise? That Izzy thinks President Obama should spend more time fulfilling his promises to create jobs that address reconstruction of the country’s highways, bridges, rails, and other critical infrastructure? That President Obama should spend more time initiating alternative energy programs that create more jobs? That President Obama last Friday spent way too much time rambling half coherently about the impact of our country’s infrastructure on private business, and not nearly enough time doing something to create more jobs that address the dire need to stimulate the economy and fix our decaying infrastructure?

       Is it true now that Izzy is hungry, and it’s lunch time, and Izzy is going to the bank to get some lunch money? That Izzy is going to draw out enough for a good, cold drink as well?

   • I see (once again) that your selective censorship is your primary role. Do you fear my comments so much that you refuse to allow me to speak as freely as the people who mindlessly agree with you, or are you just ashamed that I poke so many holes in your article.

     I find it fascinating that your “Terms of Service” states you are “an online newspaper” that “focuses on promoting good public policy through political accountability”. Really? You’re not even a member of The Hoosier State Press Association (HSPA). You do not appear as a “newspaper” on the United States Newspaper List (USNPL) for Evansville. The FACT of the matter is that under Indiana law IC 5-3-1-0.4 you cannot even be defined as a “Newspaper”! What is it you fear so much about me and what I write? If you can say with specificity what you allege I violated of the Terms of Service, then do so!

     **********************************************

     As usual you attempt to do a right-wing hack job on what President Obama said.

     Here is the exact text of the section of the Presidents speech which is being misrepresented.

     “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

     The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

     So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

     Obama is talking very pointedly about government investments. A good example would be the Internet. A simple Google search shows tue Internet started out in the early 1960’s under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and later moved to Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). It was originally called ARPANET. The bottom line is that it is very clear that the government started what became the power of the World Wide Web and Internet that enabled the rise of countless successful businesses even though the businesses themselves “didn’t build that” any more than UPS built the highways it uses to deliver its packages or Steve Jobs built the courts that protected his patents.

     You are totally inaccurate in alleging President Obama was “wrong” for remarks he made defending public investments in infrastructure, accusing him of taking credit for the hard work of small business and risk-taking.

     You and the rest of the desparate right-wing are picking a lpecific line the president said at a campaign event rather than allowing the entire speech to be understood. Come on, get real. Context is everything! Either display the entire contect or at least have the honesty to label your IS IT TRUE as a Right-wing teabagger hack job.

     The line the right wing is all crazy over has been “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” It only sounds bad if you maliciously leave out the sentences directly before and after, which make it crystal clear Obama wasn’t talking about building businesses at all. The “that” in “you didn’t build that” referred to roads, bridges, infrastructure, education, emergency services and law and order, which are the backbone of “support” that our government provides, services that protect and enable business owners along the way toward creating a successful operation.

     True news sites disseminate facts the public needs to know, and thru analysis they interpret issues and events objectively and impersonally. To be reputable as a news organization you must discerne how to balance a story so that it is fair to all parties so that the storie is balanced to be objective as possible.

     A journalism and ethics website I read has something you need to do a better job of following

     “Fairness means making sure all viewpoints are included in a story. Reporters discern which viewpoints are more important than others in conveying the truth about a topic or event. If some facts detract from that truth, or are unfair, ethical journalists leave them out.

     Objectivity means seeing the world as it is, not as the reporter or reader would like it to be. Reporters discern whether they have any biases that might taint a story and, if so, how they might adjust for that when filing a report.”

     This just goes to further prove you are an opinion blog more than a reputable news site. You are a “shill”, which if you look at Wikipedia states -“Shill” can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws.

     • We have no fear of anything you write.

       • Thanks for posting this after you deleted the first one. I appreciate you allowing the discussion.

     • Wow, someone needs to take their meds this morning.

       The President doesn’t need anyone doing a “hack job” on his comments. They speak for themselves. In fact, the best thing the opposition could do is just stand back and let him continue to put his foot in his own mouth.

       In the interest of fairness…the same applies to Romney.

     • Thanks for posting this Truth Squad. I hadn’t heard/read the President’s comment in its full context until now. Out of context, I was enraged by the implication of what I thought he meant. I’m sure that 99% of the people that are upset don’t know anything more of what he said than just that one sentence.

       I like it a lot better when the CCO sticks to local politics. I don’t see the same objectivity with national politics. It’s OK to call a spade a spade, but distorting facts and taking things out of context is for FOX and the like. I have enjoyed reading the CCO,because it has stood for truth, common sense, and fairness regardless of political affiliation. Getting half-truths and mis-quotes from the CCO pisses me off.

       • How does the context help him here? I have seen a lot of people leap to his defense as if he is being taken out of context, but what he said before and after the oft-quoted most offensive sentence was just a further elaboration on the same theme of collectivism.

         Again, how does the context nullify or neutralize the worst offense?

       • Even though they will be surprised, there have been a number of times I was impressed by CCO coverage of local topics. My main issue is that there have been far too many times they have put things online that appeared to be more innuendo than fact. I abhor blogs that have a bias and then try to portray things as “news”

         Thanks for the kind comments. Much appreciated.

         • I disagree with the CCO on a few issues as well, but I’m not prepared to dismiss their point of view entirely because of a few disagreements. All that leads to is the kind of BS partisan politics we have now.

           People should be judged on the merits of their individual ideas and core philosophies. In the case of Obama and his now infamous speech, his core ideology of collectivism and government force over private enterprise and individualism is pretty damn clear.

           I think there is definitely merit in discussing the finer points of individualism v. collectivism and their pros and cons, but I see no point in those espousing a collectivist approach to solving problems running away from the Obama speech claiming we individualists are taking it out of context when we clearly are not. His speech was designed as an attack against the perceived “haves” by the “have not” mob. He was playing to a sector of society that is a-ok with ideas like redistribution of wealth, so long as it means they get an additional piece of someone else’s hard-won pie.

       • The best way to understand the context of the words is to see the President when he says them. Here is a link to the three minutes of the speech.

         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q

         • It is like a bad rash. It is all over the internet. There is no mistaking what he said and what he meant.

           He can not spin his way out of this one, too many people have seen the video.

           __

         • Pretty cut and dried. How someone can say it’s being misrepresented is beyond me, but I never claimed to be a liberal “intellectual” (those quotation marks are for coo-coo troof squad)
           Vote the Kenyan out, you know who I am.

         • I see/hear absolutely nothing different in how he says it or how he looks when he says it than I did when I read it. Clearly the topic is about his desire to end the Bush era tax cuts that were given to the wealthy. The entire speech is a rebuttal to complaints that the 1% should not be punished for their brains and hard work and that it will kill the economy. You can agree or disagree with killing the tax cuts, but he did not say that you did not build your business. He said you did not create the infrastructure that all businesses use for their business. Could/should he have used different words to make this more clear? Hell yes.

       • …and as for the internet being a government “invention”, that is being very liberal with the definition of “invention”.

         The internet is not a “thing” in the static sense. It is an ever-evolving network of interconnected things, the majority of which were developed, again, by private investors and didn’t do the public any good until well AFTER private money was put to use in the field.

         The Personal Computer is one such development. There is a wonderful example of private ingenuity being developed in basements and garages by a bunch of geeky, entrepreneurial stoners, and NOT government. The software DOS was also privately developed. Under PRIVATE oversight, computer and other telecommunications components got smaller, faster, and cheaper at a parabolic and explosive rate.

         To say “government invented the internet” is just as silly as saying “Euclid invented mathematics”. Not only would the internet have been developed anyway, but 99% of the developments leading up to this claimed “invention” of the internet by government were discovered and developed by scientists operating independently and in private. Examples include the developers of all early electromagnetic/telegraphic technology and the first viable fiber optics.

5. Hope and change my butt!!! I for one will vote for change!!!!!!!!!!

6. None of these liberals have been raising any hell about ABC reporting that the shooter in Colorado was with the Tea Party and getting caught in that lie. You want to see bias in the news just go turn on the TV to any channel or pick up a mainstream newspaper.

7. Is it true that Glen Beck has taken over writing for the COO? Is it true that everytime I log onto here there’s a Limbaugh-esque rant?

   • Is it true that you are a blithering idiot?

     Hell Yes!

8. If you don’t like what the CCO post the answer is simple

   DON”T READ IT! Read the “no news” Evanscille Courier.

Comments are closed.