Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Who built the Panhandle Shops of Logansport, Indiana?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
N∅ M∅ ∅baMa∅
Jul 22, 2012, 3:17:08 PM7/22/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWnjdL1SY9Q
"You didn't build that." Four common words spoken by Candidate ObaMa0
in rhetorical cadence in Roanoke, Virginia, in front of a most
friendly home team crowd, are now the center of a campaign argument
more than a week later. OFA [ObaMa0 For America] asserts that POTUS
was referring to "roads and bridges." As in, "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..."
It is tortured rhetoric in any event, and OFA is aware that the
American Crossroads ad "Build," that presents the phrase as an insult
to small business owners, is not a positive development. Why did
ObaMa0 speak such gibberish? Is it meaningful to him to say that
American prosperity is a product of earlier American endeavor? What
about the part of the tortured rhetoric that mocks "smart?" As in,
"...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..." This is either a flatly trite
remark, trash-talking smarty-pants citizens, or it is incoherent
disdain for the self-made man or woman in modern and historical
America. What could Candidate ObaMa0 be talking about? What "roads
and bridges?" Mention that the American pioneers did not have "roads
and bridges." My forbears included the Rogers family and the
Batchelor family, and from what I know to be accurate, they pushed
west through the Cumberland Gap in the 18th and early 19th centuries,
or they pushed up the Mississippi. No "roads and bridges" about it.
The Batchelors of Indiana (my paternal grandfather, great-grandfather
and great-great-grandfather were Hoosiers) were Logansport farm boys
until Wall Street investment pushed lines, yards and shops into
Indiana. Somebody did build those roads: that would be the railroad
barons. For example: The Lake Michigan, Logansport & Ohio River
Railroad was incorporated by James Dunn, Williamson Wright, and George
Walker in 1848, I learn, and the capital stock was $1 million, sold at
$25.00 a share. By 1901, more than 200 trains were passing through
Logansport daily, and the Panhandle Shops were the largest employer on
the Wabash; and my grandfather John C. Batchelor's paycheck from the
Pennysylvania Roads was a direct result of the railroad matrix at
Logansport. In 1921, the yards, lines and Panhandle Shops were taken
over in a consolidation of the roads by the Pennsylvania Railroad; the
same year my father was born in Logansport. "Roads and bridges."
"You didn't build that." Did POTUS mean to say that the work and
risk of the railroad barons, plutocratic capitalists all, built the
Panhandle Shops? It wasn’t the federal government -- from the Whigs
of 1850 to the Republicans of 1900 to the Democrats of 1920 -- that
is a certainty. Ninety-one years later, my small business is a
product of my grandfather's work and risk for the railroads, my
father's work and risk for the textiles, and my work and risk for
publishers. How to hear that we didn’t get here on our own? The
"roads and bridges" in the postcard of the Wabash below, and the
postcard of the Wabash and Eel confluence above, who built them? The
raliroads did, all private, all risk, and eventually all in failure
many times. Puzzling of POTUS to speak sloppily of capitalism at this
stage in the campaign: ObaMa0 knows he is suspect for bashing Bain and
Romney, for demonizing "millionaires and billionaires." Is he deaf to
the OFA advisers?
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/blog/2012/07/who-built-panhandle-shops-logansport-indiana
NO! He's not deaf - he's a MARXIST!
"You didn't build that." Four common words spoken by Candidate ObaMa0
in rhetorical cadence in Roanoke, Virginia, in front of a most
friendly home team crowd, are now the center of a campaign argument
more than a week later. OFA [ObaMa0 For America] asserts that POTUS
was referring to "roads and bridges." As in, "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..."
It is tortured rhetoric in any event, and OFA is aware that the
American Crossroads ad "Build," that presents the phrase as an insult
to small business owners, is not a positive development. Why did
ObaMa0 speak such gibberish? Is it meaningful to him to say that
American prosperity is a product of earlier American endeavor? What
about the part of the tortured rhetoric that mocks "smart?" As in,
"...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..." This is either a flatly trite
remark, trash-talking smarty-pants citizens, or it is incoherent
disdain for the self-made man or woman in modern and historical
America. What could Candidate ObaMa0 be talking about? What "roads
and bridges?" Mention that the American pioneers did not have "roads
and bridges." My forbears included the Rogers family and the
Batchelor family, and from what I know to be accurate, they pushed
west through the Cumberland Gap in the 18th and early 19th centuries,
or they pushed up the Mississippi. No "roads and bridges" about it.
The Batchelors of Indiana (my paternal grandfather, great-grandfather
and great-great-grandfather were Hoosiers) were Logansport farm boys
until Wall Street investment pushed lines, yards and shops into
Indiana. Somebody did build those roads: that would be the railroad
barons. For example: The Lake Michigan, Logansport & Ohio River
Railroad was incorporated by James Dunn, Williamson Wright, and George
Walker in 1848, I learn, and the capital stock was $1 million, sold at
$25.00 a share. By 1901, more than 200 trains were passing through
Logansport daily, and the Panhandle Shops were the largest employer on
the Wabash; and my grandfather John C. Batchelor's paycheck from the
Pennysylvania Roads was a direct result of the railroad matrix at
Logansport. In 1921, the yards, lines and Panhandle Shops were taken
over in a consolidation of the roads by the Pennsylvania Railroad; the
same year my father was born in Logansport. "Roads and bridges."
"You didn't build that." Did POTUS mean to say that the work and
risk of the railroad barons, plutocratic capitalists all, built the
Panhandle Shops? It wasn’t the federal government -- from the Whigs
of 1850 to the Republicans of 1900 to the Democrats of 1920 -- that
is a certainty. Ninety-one years later, my small business is a
product of my grandfather's work and risk for the railroads, my
father's work and risk for the textiles, and my work and risk for
publishers. How to hear that we didn’t get here on our own? The
"roads and bridges" in the postcard of the Wabash below, and the
postcard of the Wabash and Eel confluence above, who built them? The
raliroads did, all private, all risk, and eventually all in failure
many times. Puzzling of POTUS to speak sloppily of capitalism at this
stage in the campaign: ObaMa0 knows he is suspect for bashing Bain and
Romney, for demonizing "millionaires and billionaires." Is he deaf to
the OFA advisers?
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/blog/2012/07/who-built-panhandle-shops-logansport-indiana
NO! He's not deaf - he's a MARXIST!
Chas.Chan
Jul 26, 2012, 9:03:13 PM7/26/12
to
It isn't socialism that explains Obama's dismissive "you didn't build
that" remark toward people of talent and individual initiative; it's
the culture of affirmative action. As I listened to Obama's silly, if
not pathetic, comments, I was reminded of nothing so much as the
comments and attitudes of people like him: the so-called
"multicultural" affirmative-action students one encounters in colleges
and universities.
These are people who, like Obama, earned little except a greased skid
because of the color of their skin. They knew that by any competitive
standard of merit, they were undeserving. The faculty and other
students knew it. And the affirmative action students knew that
everyone knew it.
Obama knows he didn't have what it took to get into Columbia, and he
didn't have what it took to get into Harvard Law. Let's face an
inescapable reality. If Obama had great grades, his transcripts would
be in a full-page ad in the New York Times.
Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review (HLR) without ever
having an article published in it, a status that separated him from
every other HLR president who preceded him. In fact, while Obama was
the HLR's first black president, few people know that 70 years
earlier, Charles Houston had become the HLR's first black editor,
contradicting the myth that black people cannot succeed without
affirmative action. Obama didn't possess the skills to be on the HLR,
let alone to be the review's president.
What Obama had was an ascriptive characteristic, slightly black skin,
at a time when there were racial divisions -- some real, some
manipulated -- that were fracturing the Harvard law student body.
Obama was chosen to ameliorate political tensions, not because of his
brilliance.
If you come of age in an environment where nearly everyone around you
competed and worked hard to get where they are and you didn't, the way
you defend against the inevitable ensuing feelings of inadequacy is to
create a psychological rationale that no one, absolutely no one, got
anywhere except with a leg up and a helping hand from others. Their
"affirmative action" is just less conspicuous than yours, but the
bottom line is that you are no different from them.
When faculty make affirmative-action hires, each of those hires knows
that there were people passed over who were eminently more qualified
for the position -- people who worked harder and published more in
better places. In an environment that truly valued achievement over
ascription, they, not you, would have been hired. Your very presence
is a testimonial that the system is corrupt.
So, the inner voice says, I didn't build it; I know that, but neither
did they. I assuage my guilt by making my reality their reality. I
am redefining success and all that goes into it to conform to my own
reality.
For Obama, the psychological dissonance was made even greater when he
was granted a Nobel Peace Prize not for what he accomplished, but for
what he was supposed to accomplish and obviously hasn't.
There have been calls in colleges and universities to exempt black
students from all examinations -- not just standardized tests --
because such examinations are culturally biased. There has been a
heated discussion over the elimination of the AP (advanced placement)
and honors programs at elite public high schools because few
minorities qualify for the classes. And hardly a semester goes by
without someone calling for grading black students on Ebonics rather
than on the criteria of standard college English, the English which,
allegedly, everyone is supposed to master in college.
This mindset proposes that whites made it only because the culture
itself is their affirmative action. They didn't build it; the culture
enabled them to build it. No one builds anything; every creation is a
product of cultural accommodation, an accommodation that minorities do
not receive.
This is the racial variant of Marx's fundamental concepts of the base
and superstructure, concepts from which the entire Marxist critique of
civilization emanates. The economic base -- the system of production
-- determines everything else. That everything else, Marxists call
the superstructure. Consequently, art, history, literature, drama,
even science are all determined by the economic base and designed to
legitimize it.
Racial nationalists have simply supplanted economics with race. With
race as the base, the superstructure -- the culture of society -- is
simply the legitimizing instrument of race. According to this
mindset, blacks and other minorities can't succeed because the system
is designed intrinsically to cause them to fail.
With Obama, we have entered a new cultural era, one where the very
foundations of individual initiative, creativity, and achievement are
called into question. Obama didn't build it -- and it only appears
that others did, because their skin color enabled them to achieve.
Welcome to the new post-racial society, where there is no such thing
as individual achievement.
By Abraham H. Miller
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/you_didnt_build_itbecause_i_didnt_earn_it.html
that" remark toward people of talent and individual initiative; it's
the culture of affirmative action. As I listened to Obama's silly, if
not pathetic, comments, I was reminded of nothing so much as the
comments and attitudes of people like him: the so-called
"multicultural" affirmative-action students one encounters in colleges
and universities.
These are people who, like Obama, earned little except a greased skid
because of the color of their skin. They knew that by any competitive
standard of merit, they were undeserving. The faculty and other
students knew it. And the affirmative action students knew that
everyone knew it.
Obama knows he didn't have what it took to get into Columbia, and he
didn't have what it took to get into Harvard Law. Let's face an
inescapable reality. If Obama had great grades, his transcripts would
be in a full-page ad in the New York Times.
Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review (HLR) without ever
having an article published in it, a status that separated him from
every other HLR president who preceded him. In fact, while Obama was
the HLR's first black president, few people know that 70 years
earlier, Charles Houston had become the HLR's first black editor,
contradicting the myth that black people cannot succeed without
affirmative action. Obama didn't possess the skills to be on the HLR,
let alone to be the review's president.
What Obama had was an ascriptive characteristic, slightly black skin,
at a time when there were racial divisions -- some real, some
manipulated -- that were fracturing the Harvard law student body.
Obama was chosen to ameliorate political tensions, not because of his
brilliance.
If you come of age in an environment where nearly everyone around you
competed and worked hard to get where they are and you didn't, the way
you defend against the inevitable ensuing feelings of inadequacy is to
create a psychological rationale that no one, absolutely no one, got
anywhere except with a leg up and a helping hand from others. Their
"affirmative action" is just less conspicuous than yours, but the
bottom line is that you are no different from them.
When faculty make affirmative-action hires, each of those hires knows
that there were people passed over who were eminently more qualified
for the position -- people who worked harder and published more in
better places. In an environment that truly valued achievement over
ascription, they, not you, would have been hired. Your very presence
is a testimonial that the system is corrupt.
So, the inner voice says, I didn't build it; I know that, but neither
did they. I assuage my guilt by making my reality their reality. I
am redefining success and all that goes into it to conform to my own
reality.
For Obama, the psychological dissonance was made even greater when he
was granted a Nobel Peace Prize not for what he accomplished, but for
what he was supposed to accomplish and obviously hasn't.
There have been calls in colleges and universities to exempt black
students from all examinations -- not just standardized tests --
because such examinations are culturally biased. There has been a
heated discussion over the elimination of the AP (advanced placement)
and honors programs at elite public high schools because few
minorities qualify for the classes. And hardly a semester goes by
without someone calling for grading black students on Ebonics rather
than on the criteria of standard college English, the English which,
allegedly, everyone is supposed to master in college.
This mindset proposes that whites made it only because the culture
itself is their affirmative action. They didn't build it; the culture
enabled them to build it. No one builds anything; every creation is a
product of cultural accommodation, an accommodation that minorities do
not receive.
This is the racial variant of Marx's fundamental concepts of the base
and superstructure, concepts from which the entire Marxist critique of
civilization emanates. The economic base -- the system of production
-- determines everything else. That everything else, Marxists call
the superstructure. Consequently, art, history, literature, drama,
even science are all determined by the economic base and designed to
legitimize it.
Racial nationalists have simply supplanted economics with race. With
race as the base, the superstructure -- the culture of society -- is
simply the legitimizing instrument of race. According to this
mindset, blacks and other minorities can't succeed because the system
is designed intrinsically to cause them to fail.
With Obama, we have entered a new cultural era, one where the very
foundations of individual initiative, creativity, and achievement are
called into question. Obama didn't build it -- and it only appears
that others did, because their skin color enabled them to achieve.
Welcome to the new post-racial society, where there is no such thing
as individual achievement.
By Abraham H. Miller
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/you_didnt_build_itbecause_i_didnt_earn_it.html
BeamMeUpScotty
Jul 26, 2012, 9:20:02 PM7/26/12
to
On 7/26/2012 9:03 PM, Chas.Chan wrote:
> Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review (HLR) without ever
> having an article published in it, a status that separated him from
> every other HLR president who preceded him. In fact, while Obama was
> the HLR's first black president, few people know that 70 years
> earlier, Charles Houston had become the HLR's first black editor,
> contradicting the myth that black people cannot succeed without
> affirmative action. Obama didn't possess the skills to be on the HLR,
> let alone to be the review's president.
["Roberts grew up in northern Indiana and was educated in a private
> Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review (HLR) without ever
> having an article published in it, a status that separated him from
> every other HLR president who preceded him. In fact, while Obama was
> the HLR's first black president, few people know that 70 years
> earlier, Charles Houston had become the HLR's first black editor,
> contradicting the myth that black people cannot succeed without
> affirmative action. Obama didn't possess the skills to be on the HLR,
> let alone to be the review's president.
school before attending Harvard College and Harvard Law School, where he
was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. After being admitted to
the bar, he served as a law clerk for Judge Henry Friendly and then
Justice Rehnquist before taking a position in the Attorney General's
office during the Reagan Administration"]
Harvard is turning out losers.... Legal morons and basket cases.
--
*Inalienable Lesson*
#41 - When we lived under a constitution we were a Nation of LAWS.
0 new messages