Romney and Bain?

[Technomancer]

Yes, I have, but why do I want to believe Obama's lies?

You can't be that dense. I was talking about the lies about Obama.

Actually, you are that dense, nevermind.

<fact>

lol.

Oh, that's rich. My "style of extreme polarization" is pretty much my vaudevillian interpretation of the Left's general social outlook on all issues, as expressed through pretty much all media outlets. Consider your beliefs about religion, abortion, health care, the TEA Party, or other hot-button issues, but then just try to expand your mind enough to recognize that you are far & away more hate-filled about these than I. <I'm> putting on an act, simply drawing attention to your sacred cows. You really believe that anyone who's got an opposing belief is somehow... evil.

You really don't know the first thing about most of my beliefs or the nuance contained therein because you are so pre-occupied with your labels. It's a mental trick you play so you don't have to actually think critically about anything, you label someone or something "the devil", and you no longer have to ask yourself complicated questions.

As for your list (religion, abortion, health care, and T party): Live and let live, I'm somewhat conflicted about it, I don't think tough love is called for when someone is about to die (not to mention the shameful amounts of money we needlessly waste on it), and I think they're resentful people who are mad at the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I'll even throw in a bonus: After the Colorado shooting spree, I think people on the left need to get off the gun thing. Guns don't kill people, psychopaths kill people.

Wow, I can't believe what a hate-filled pinko I am!!

Whereas you support Obama and can find no wrong with him, EVEN WHEN HE REPEATEDLY SPOUTS MARXIST DOGMA. "Democratic representative government", given the most secretive, most corrupt, and most "imperial" presidency in recent history? Who's the blind one here?

I find quite a bit wrong with him. Despite the fever dreams you have of him being Maohitlerstalin incarnate, he has legislated like a moderate Republican (including a Republican health care bill), carried on with much of the Bush disgustination as you just mentioned, has continued the Bush tax giveaways (no one who supports the Bush tax cuts gives a flying **** about the debt. Period.), and is a total *****.

I guess I'd rather have a somewhat corrupt cop on the beat than a mafia hitman.

For that to be true (which is not the case), Romney would have to be claiming that the Olympians didn't really win their medals, and that someone else made that happen. Discounting that part, the frame of reference for Romney is people playing games with the emotional support of their friends or family. The frame of reference for Obama is that no commercial sector would be possible without Gov't. Obama has expressed his view that business is essentially parasitic on more than one occasion; this is simply the first time it's been recognized in a juicy sound byte. As above, who's being dense here?

EDIT - P.S. Romney didn't precede the comment by sneering at the athletes. Obama does.

He essentially said the exact same thing Obama said. You conveniently left out Romney talking about the communities that built the venues in which the athletes were able to practice and train. Obama was sneering at people (like you) that religiously cling to the notion that the government is completely irrelevant to anyone's success, ever, ever. I guess that's why Somalia has such a booming and robust business culture.

Actually, the poor guy in Romney's lie ad directly benefited from the big bad government. Oh, and he also largely agrees with what Obama really said, just not the degree with which it was stated.

---

Don't feel bad guys, his definition of a socialist/communist/fascist/et cetera-ist consists of roughly 98.3% of the human race. Trying to convince him otherwise is like trying to convince a Muslim terrorist on LSD that women without beekeeper suits are not whores AND that the floor is NOT actually lava at the same time.

[krischan]

Using the term socialism in some manner doesn't make somebody a socialist. You really think Bismarck regarded himself as a socialist?

Yup, just as the Chinese regard themselves as Capitalist

OK, then show me where Bismarck said soemthing like "I'm a socialist". Your definition of socialism becomes more and more absurd.

[jmervyn]

Politics can be represented as a kind of number-line, like the one they taught you in kindergarten. It really is that simple. *cough*

Despite your intent of snark, it really is that simple. One end of the 'control' spectrum is anarchy, the other totalitarianism. Where one is on the spectrum shades one's perception of being "left" or "right", as you proved with Blair.

As you can see, the Right and the Left have nothing whatsoever in common.

That's invalid, as I hope you know. There is more than one road on the 'control' spectrum that can be followed, whether it is feudal ('right'), socialist ('left'), or some variation. No matter what the flavor, they're all about domination of others.

You can't be that dense. I was talking about the lies about Obama.

Actually, you are that dense, nevermind.

Those whose language skills are insufficient to grasp snark should not comment on others' opacity.

As for your list (religion, abortion, health care, and T party): Live and let live, I'm somewhat conflicted about it,

Interesting; are your ethics as situational as your stances? You've come down on the bitter left side numerous times about these items previously.

Wow, I can't believe what a hate-filled pinko I am!!

Given your shifty views, I'll simply say that you're quite confused. I hope you haven't dyed your hair orange.

I find quite a bit wrong with him.

Yet you furiously defend his lies, and even lie on his behalf? Doesn't wash.

he has legislated like a moderate Republican (including a Republican health care bill),

So Bush was a hard left Democrat, by your lights. Good to know.

has continued the Bush tax giveaways (no one who supports the Bush tax cuts gives a flying **** about the debt. Period.)

The Bush cuts are far more stimulative of the economy than his cronyism, his support of the policies that led to the collapse in the first place, or even his illegal confiscation of private wealth and subsequent redistribution to supporters. Yes, the last part is how he personally stole $20K from my family.

He essentially said the exact same thing Obama said.

That's an open lie, yet again. Why are you behaving like a dog returning to it's own vomit? The two speeches were not even about the same topic, and while Romney was praising Olympians, Obama has a long record of depicting small business owners as the parasitic "rich". Again, he's made this type of statement multiple times recently (I read four, but can't substantiate) and this on the heels of his (again, repeated) claim that the private sector is doing just fine. This DELIBERATE wording was apparently intended to appeal to the OWS sentiment, and it's an obvious collectivist belief.

Here, I'll explain it to you, since you didn't start using the potty papers after the first time. Obama's claim, even interpreted in the dishonest fashion you wish it was made, is that business does not succeed unless built on the bedrock of Gov't investment (AKA "the winning Progressive message"). Obama's assertion is that the Collective, embodied as the interstate highway system (WW2), the Internet (originally Xerox), and Dept. of Education (thanks, Jimmah Cahtah!) are what allow business to function, not that American society has traditionally been amongst the more stable, pro-business, anti-shackle nations.

Furthermore, his assertion is that somehow the collective contribution of the proles is not just required for such success, but that it is more important than those considering themselves "smart" - when in reality entrepreneurs are indeed paying FAR greater than their fair share by comparison. The assertion that collectivism benefits entrepreneurial-ism is castrated by the obvious failings in his track record; his belief that human capital has some sort of causative relationship springing from centralization and bureaucracy is, well, nothing short of insane. Obama has opened the throttle on Gov't graft, yet our infrastructure rots and according to his folks we'll never see another dam. Could the Pentagon be built now, much less the Empire State Building? Never happen.

Here's the original text of the professor who Obama and Warren are using for their philosophical underpinning:

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! They 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.

In order for Obama's perception of the success that this Federally sponsored collectivism, his stated belief has had to have any excuse, one need only look at HIS allies: Hollywood, the monopolistic media, Wall Street bankers, George Soros, Bill Ayers' education organizations, unions, and the like. HIS allies are not of the industrial sector, and even Jeff Immelt and T. Boone Pickens are, like SCO, in the business of crony capitalism - profit through litigation and Gov't monopoly peddling rather than innovation and hard work. They've all done relatively well, Solyndra and the green boondoggles included; they've had massive short term profit, er, profiteering.

Hollywood actors are more frequently of the nepotist kind now; there's far fewer Norma Jeane Mortensons and far many more Tori Spellings.

Obama was sneering at people (like you) that religiously cling to the notion that the government is completely irrelevant to anyone's success, ever, ever.

Funny, you're trying to shove so many words that he never said in yet another pitifully desperate attempt to lie about his beliefs, understanding, and motivations that you must be using a plumber's helper on your computer screen.

Actually, the poor guy in Romney's lie ad directly benefited from the big bad government. Oh, and he also largely agrees with what Obama really said, just not the degree with which it was stated.

Your flailing desperation isn't working. Romney was referring to the network of individuals who help athletes achieve their dreams. Obama was openly contemptuous of private entrepreneurs who don’t believe they should be punished with even more confiscatory government policies that hinder their success.

It's really not at all surprising - Romney has been a venture capitalist for a significant portion of his career, gambling money <he> is responsible for on entrepreneurs who really DO "build that". Obama, on the other hand, surrounds himself with the ultra "rich" which he claims to despise so deeply - Wall Streeters, Jeff Immelt, George Soros... people who use or steal others' wealth in pursuit of personal enrichment while not actually having responsibility.

Obama's tight friends did indeed not "build that", they confiscate it, loot it, or otherwise rest on the public's investment. He couldn't even explain what his job was to his friends, since it was in essence "rabble-rousing". His wife's job, racial pandering with a pretty title, was so critical that they created the job for her and eliminated it when she left. The only thing Obama ever "built" was a tiny public playground, and he was such a trans-formative figurehead of hope and change that you may recall his constituents beating each other to death with construction timbers (as seen on YouTube!)

Hey, though, you just keep on lying to yourself and others - PLEASE! The more pitiful your screeching and wailing becomes, the more often people will read and watch the speeches of both Obama and Warren and realize that it's just as accurate an expression of his Marxist belief and class warfare agitation as I'm saying it is. For you to slurp the honeypot about "that" being roads and bridges simply makes you look like a hyper-partisan idiot -- which is what you're trying to claim I am.

Don't feel bad guys, his definition of a socialist/communist/fascist/et cetera-ist consists of roughly 98.3% of the human race. Trying to convince him otherwise is like trying to convince a Muslim terrorist on LSD that women without beekeeper suits are not whores AND that the floor is NOT actually lava at the same time.

I'm not the one demanding the Olympic Womens' Beach Volleyball players wear burqhinis. That would be your ideological allies. Neither am I pissed off at your false representations like I was with Steve; you're a Hoosier so you're not capable of enlightenment.

Since you mocked it, yes, the socialist impulse is disgustingly widespread. It isn't only that it's tempting to think that since working together accomplishes more, then forcing people to work together will achieve miracles. It's also the human frailty to want to assign problem, solution, and blame to a higher power - which is why socialism often has the trappings of religion and is often accused of considering the state as God.

OK, then show me where Bismarck said soemthing like "I'm a socialist". Your definition of socialism becomes more and more absurd.

See, this is why you're supposed to read the links; I already provided one and don't find it now. Oh, sorry, I forgot, if you don't like the content then facts don't exist for you...

Here's one that also backs up my vague recollection regarding the French, about his support for what <I> refer to as socialist policy, and then turning against it in the face of the SDP (which I'm assuming he differentiated as what would later be Marxism or Communism). There's many more, and I don't speak German fluently enough, so I'm sure you can find them if you really had an open mind about it.

I return to the question of when and why I suspended my efforts to improve social conditions and changed my attitude toward the social question, or the social democratic question as it then came to be called. This happened at the moment when the assembled Reichstag heard a passionate speech citing the French Commune [i.e., the Paris Commune of 1871] as the ideal political regime and openly embracing the gospel of these murderers and arsonists—I no longer know if it was Bebel or [Wilhelm] Liebknecht, but it was one of the two.... From that moment on I have felt a great sense of urgency about the danger that threatens us...; that appeal to the Commune was a beam of light illuminating the whole issue, and from that moment on I have recognized social democratic elements as an enemy against whom the state and society must defend themselves.... We in Germany do not need to resort to the drastic means adopted by the French, but France is no longer the bastion of socialism, it has reduced the movement to dimensions tolerable for the government and society. How? Through persuasion perhaps? No! Through violent repression, through means that I do not recommend and which I hope that we will never see.... Is this rhetorical appeal [by Social Democrats] to the example of the Commune, this appeal to threats and the use of force, is it to be regarded merely as a rhetorical form, has it not been continued in long years of press agitation? I have observed this press for years, and the appeal to violence, the preparation for future acts of violence has long been quite noticeable, even if it was not so prominent as in the last weeks. I recall one article in a socialist paper—I only read it in the excerpt published by the Post—that depicted the assassination of General Mesenzow [in Russia in August 1878] as a just execution and recommended, in terms hard to misunderstand, the employment of a similar system under German conditions. It concluded with the words: discite moniti! [You have been warned!]

Later on, he returned to his earlier support:

"Give the working-man the right to work as long as he is healthy," he said on May 9th; "assure him care when he is sick; assure him maintenance when he is old. If you do that, and do not fear the sacrifice, or cry out at State Socialism directly the words 'provision for old age' are uttered—if the State will show a little more Christian solicitude for the working-man, then I believe that the gentlemen of the Wyden [i.e., Social-Democratic] programme will sound their bird-call in vain, and that the thronging to them will cease as soon as working-men see that the government and legislative bodies are earnestly concerned for their welfare." ... "Yes, I acknowledge unconditionally a right to work, and I will stand up for it as long as I am in this place. But here I do not stand upon the ground of Socialism, which is said to have begun with the Bismarck Ministry, but on that of the Prussian common law.... Was not the right to work openly proclaimed at the time of the publication of the common law? Is it not established in all our social arrangements that the man who comes before his fellow-citizens and says, 'I am healthy, I desire to work, but can find no work,' is entitled to say also, 'Give me work,' and that the State is bound to give him work?" "But large public works would be necessary," objected his opponents. "Of course," was Bismarck's rejoinder; "let them be undertaken. Why not? It is the State's duty."

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

Originally Posted by LozHinge the Unhinged
As you can see, the Right and the Left have nothing whatsoever in common.

That's invalid, as I hope you know. There is more than one road on the 'control' spectrum that can be followed, whether it is feudal ('right'), socialist ('left'), or some variation. No matter what the flavor, they're all about domination of others.

Merv, give your irony meter a little kick, it's sticking a little

[krischan]

In the bold part he said that he is not a socialist.

Granting the right to work and assuring care when being old and sick isn't socialism just because socialists would approve of it. Apples, oranges, I know, but I will repeat my definition as long as you repeat yours and I can be very persistent

Just to clarify, the right to work doesn't mean having a guaranteed job, like in the GDR. It just means you cannot disallow people to have one.

[jmervyn]

Merv, give your irony meter a little kick, it's sticking a little

Sorry, I was using that tactic of over-analyzing your joke to drive home my claim. I'll come up with something snarkier when I have some time.

Granting the right to work and assuring care when being old and sick isn't socialism just because socialists would approve of it. Apples, oranges, I know, but I will repeat my definition as long as you repeat yours and I can be very persistent

YOU HAVE YET TO OFFER A DEFINITION. You're just paraphrasing Tim Geithner - You don't have an explanation to offer, but you know you don't like mine.

Bismark was trying to pretend he wasn't hypocritical in the bold bit, since he was admitting that others recognized he used socialism to keep the Proles quiet. Using current terminology, Bismarck was obviously using Socialism to avoid falling to Communist revolution, which was what was feared from seeing France's example. Better in his view for both the Junkers and the proles for the State to control benefits than risk the mob seizing power to distribute the loot.

Just to clarify, the right to work doesn't mean having a guaranteed job, like in the GDR. It just means you cannot disallow people to have one.

I've already told you my story about the ex-DDR citizen working on the Siemens assembly line. One core difference that jumps out is that you don't get unemployment if you haven't "paid into" the system; it's still a "pyramid scheme" but it's seemingly a far less malevolent one than America's. In similar fashion, your corporations have far more worker involvement than American ones generally do, so your unions aren't in as much of an "us vs. them" as American ones are (Marx & Engel's citizenship notwithstanding).

[jamesL]

you're still dense

For that to be true (which is not the case), Romney would have to be claiming that the Olympians didn't really win their medals, and that someone else made that happen.

Obama is not claiming successful didn't build their businesses anymore than Romney is claiming the Olympians didn't win their medals

what they BOTH said is they didn't do it on their own

anyone with any reading comprehension skills would know that

Discounting that part, the frame of reference for Romney is people playing games with the emotional support of their friends or family. The frame of reference for Obama is that no commercial sector would be possible without Gov't.

Obama : "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. "
as i said, reading comprehension

there is nothing in that speech that implies "no commercial sector would be possible without Gov't."
seriously, nothing at all

what about "Somebody invested in roads and bridges."

see, he said SOMEBODY INVESTED, not GOVERNMENT BUILT
so he's obviously saying hard working people invested their money and bought bonds; and the results of the investments of others have helped you

the WHOLE theme of is speech is NOT help from the government, but help from teachers, and other successful people
Obama: "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back."
the theme is "successful people working together, contributing, helping, buying bonds, investing in roads and bridges, donating money to universities

as opposed to shipping jobs overseas, making billions but using loopholes to pay less taxes

Obama has expressed his view that business is essentially parasitic on more than one occasion; this is simply the first time it's been recognized in a juicy sound byte. As above, who's being dense here?

you are
lack of reading comprehension skills

EDIT - P.S. Romney didn't precede the comment by sneering at the athletes. Obama does.

Obama: "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."

a lot of smart people, a lot of hardworking people
yeah, sounds like sneering to me

the people he's sneering at are arrogant people who think they did it all on their own, just as an athlete would be arrogant to think he won an Olympic medal without help from his coach or family (there's that thing called reading comprehension again)

and you are grossly unaware of facts if you think Xerox invented the internet lol

http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/.../history.shtml

http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

[krischan]

YOU HAVE YET TO OFFER A DEFINITION.

Socialism is about letting the state take control over everything or most of it, with the goal of using it to the benefit of everybody. According to your definition, it has only to be applied to a few things or just a single one. That's why e.g. Obama is a socialist in your eyes and none in my opinion. I don't believe that socialism according to my definition will work well, for the sake of completeness.

I agree that there is no definition which is commonly agreed upon.

[Technomancer]

Interesting; are your ethics as situational as your stances? You've come down on the bitter left side numerous times about these items previously.
...
Given your shifty views, I'll simply say that you're quite confused. I hope you haven't dyed your hair orange.

Insinuating that I'm a mass murdering psychopath aside, I'm not confused, although you lack the mental depth to comprehend a moderate viewpoint. You assume that everyone is as one-dimensionally zealous as yourself. To elaborate, I've stated many times here that I don't like radical atheists any more than radical anything else. I usually refrain from calling myself an atheist, since I'm not some anti-christian crusader that ruins the label for the majority of normal atheists. I roll my eyes when the ACLU types try to remove 10 commandments from courthouses or stop christmas plays. I do acknowledge however, prayer in schools is over the line, and Congress putting "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Opposition to theocracy is self defense, not oppression. I can understand your resentment though, being the follower of "the only true way" and all.

As for abortion, I don't like abortion, but I am pro-choice. Why? Because I think a woman has the right to control her body. Abortion is a perfect example of division stopping us from doing things we agree on. The zealous anti-abortionists force pro-choice advocates to fight ferociously to defend the right, and all the while everyone forgets that regardless, we should be working to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies, and therefore, desired abortions. In your words, I'm a Commie.

The Bush cuts are far more stimulative of the economy than his cronyism, his support of the policies that led to the collapse in the first place, or even his illegal confiscation of private wealth and subsequent redistribution to supporters. Yes, the last part is how he personally stole $20K from my family.

The lower income aspects of it are, but the trickle down economics (a.k.a. "Piss on me and tell me it's raining" Economics) have very little stimulative effect.

Stepping out of character here for a moment, I am actually really interested in hearing your story about the $20k. I'm not being snarky, you had mentioned that before and piqued my curiosity. Unless of course it's more irl info than you care to share, I'd understand.

That's an open lie, blah blah blah blah blah...

Of course they weren't talking about the same people, but identical ideas. It's not that success is a sole product of the government, of course not. No one is saying that, no matter how bad you wish they were. However, it's foolish to deny that highways, the internet infrastructure , well educated workers... oh and let's not forget computers and the ability to put things into space have greatly increased the potential of our best and brightest. The financial stability granted by a well (as in (somewhat) well done) regulated economy also fosters an environment where entrepreneurs and capitalists can take risks instead of hoarding resources for the next depression. This worked quite well until the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which threw us back into a violently turbulent finance sector. And yes, I know that Clinton signed it. Government has a proactive role in financial prosperity, a fact that is only denied by those who want to slink out of putting back into the system from which they benefited, those who are paid to say so by the aforementioned, and those like you who buy it. In the mean time, they like to put us at each others' throats so we bicker endlessly over wedge issues and false choices while they laugh all the way to the bank unopposed.

Of course, if you want to insist that the government never does any good for anybody, I'm sure the military would love to know that you think they had no role in making you a better, more capable person.

Your flailing desperation isn't working. Romney was referring to the network of individuals who help athletes achieve their dreams. Obama was openly contemptuous of private entrepreneurs who don’t believe they should be punished with even more confiscatory government policies that hinder their success.

Individuals? I don't remember the last time I built sports arena, do you? Oh, and yet more of Romney agreeing with Obama.

Hey, though, you just keep on lying to yourself and others - PLEASE! The more pitiful your screeching and wailing becomes, the more often people will read and watch the speeches of both Obama and Warren and realize that it's just as accurate an expression of his Marxist belief and class warfare agitation as I'm saying it is. For you to slurp the honeypot about "that" being roads and bridges simply makes you look like a hyper-partisan idiot -- which is what you're trying to claim I am.

lol. It's fun watching Romney re-align his campaign behind a lie. It will be even funnier when everyone finally realizes it's a lie. Hook, line, and... wait for it...

I'm not the one demanding the Olympic Womens' Beach Volleyball players wear burqhinis. That would be your ideological allies.

No friends of mine.

Neither am I pissed off at your false representations like I was with Steve; you're a Hoosier so you're not capable of enlightenment.

I know you've had the bizarre hard-on for me for years just because of where I live, but no, I won't have sex with you. You need to move on with your life.

Since you mocked it, yes, the socialist impulse is disgustingly widespread.

Yes, it's extremely widespread.

[jmervyn]

Obama is not claiming successful didn't build their businesses anymore than Romney is claiming the Olympians didn't win their medals

Oh, then that must be why the direct quote from Obama is - "If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." He must be saying something - ANYTHING - but what he actually said. You're calling ME dense? The reason the context makes the quote so much worse is that there was scorn for business and praise for collectivism in the preceding comments, which pretty much show you're blowing smoke up your own arse.

anyone with any reading comprehension skills would know that

It never ceases to amuse how people desperately lie in order to claim something is not what it is, and then condemn people who don't believe it as uneducated, illiterate, or stupid. Consider the cartoon in the previous post as especially for you.

there is nothing in that speech that implies "no commercial sector would be possible without Gov't."
seriously, nothing at all

Sure, except for the gaffe itself. Since Obama is destroying the economy, does it still mean that's still Bush's fault?

see, he said SOMEBODY INVESTED, not GOVERNMENT BUILT
so he's obviously saying hard working people invested their money and bought bonds; and the results of the investments of others have helped you

See, the more you thrash about trying to pretend he said something else than exactly what he said, the more dishonest and deluded you are shown to be.

the WHOLE theme of is speech is NOT help from the government, but help from teachers, and other successful people
Obama: "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back."
the theme is "successful people working together, contributing, helping, buying bonds, investing in roads and bridges, donating money to universities

Oh, finally, you managed to grab something valid out of your miasma - YES, Obama is most definitely praising the Collective in this speech as opposed to individual effort or achievement (as with Romney's comments). Obama's views, as expressed by HIM rather than your interpretive dance efforts, are essentially that business does not exist without the roads and teachers. What's provided exclusively by Gov't in his world.

as opposed to shipping jobs overseas, making billions but using loopholes to pay less taxes

Yeah, that sure showed Mitt! What a hypocrite! Bain = Bane! And loopholes! Don't get me started!

What was that about reading comprehension, again? Here's a great new word for when you're looking in the mirror.

Obama: "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."

a lot of smart people, a lot of hardworking people
yeah, sounds like sneering to me

For someone complaining about context and comprehension, you're certainly unable to grasp simple language. As you just quoted, Obama is sneering at people who believe they were successful because they were smart, and worked hard. Which is, well, EXACTLY WHAT THE FECK IT TAKES. He certainly doesn't want to compare HIMSELF too closely to successful entrepreneurs, since he's not only a child of Communist privilege but has made it to where he is through racial preferences and agitation.

and you are grossly unaware of facts if you think Xerox invented the internet lol

While you're just plain ignorant, in addition to being stupidly wrong, particularly since your first link cites an urban legend (Internet was designed to be nuke-proof).

Not to get personal, but were you even born before the Internet existed? I was. I've worked with Windows since v.1.0, and my CompSci graduate class was the first one at my university not to have to use punch cards.