Originally Posted by tonton
EXACTLY. Out of context. Do you know what taking a quote out of context means? It means quoting it directly
without the surrounding context to explain the meaning. His meaning, if you watch the video, is that Congress needs to concentrate our efforts on jobs creation. If you watch the video and get the context, you can't not get that
unless you're living in denial land.
Denial land? You're serious here apparently. I'll tell you what tonton. Find a single link anywhere for me that declares ol'JJ Jr was just misunderstood and that guys like me are just quoting him out of context.
Here's the Huffington Post coming to the same conclusion.
They all draw the same conclusion and per you, all must be intentionally taking the quote out of context.
The NBA article even makes the same point I do.People often lament the loss of one industry without recognizing the value of the industry that replaces it. The classic example of course is the buggy whip manufacturer who does not anticipate the economic value of the automobile.
A quick check, however, reveals many of "those jobs" really are not that great. According to this job description, bookbinders can expect a noisy workplace where they "stand at their machines most of the day.
In addition, they do a considerable amount of stretching and lifting to operate these machines and often carry heavy batches of printed matter" for an average pay of $13.71 an hour.
An average Apple store "retail specialist" earns more than that selling those iPads.
Liberals? Try again. It may even have been made to appear like Liberals are behind certain actions, but you can be sure big oil has its hands in there somewhere. Show me where a Democratic politician is supporting such lawsuits. You can't, and you won't.
Who said anything about whether it is a politician? The suits are often by the Sierra club. I'll be happy to let them know they are now "big oil."
No one said is hasn't created jobs.
JJ Jr said the reason the unemployment rate was pegged down was because of products like the iPad. The reasoning is clear. Technological progress harms employment.
No there's not. There's also no proof that the iPad has created more jobs than it has eliminated. You're making that unproven claim.
Whether both claims can be proven or not, I'm not the one seeking action based on an unproven claim. As both you and he note, the claims are unproven yet he wants money for his unproven claim.
You're spewing nonsense as well. Show me how many jobs created by the iPad might not have been created elsewhere in industry that wouldn't have affected retail jobs. You can't, and you won't. Your'e making assumptions, as you are wont to do.
I think you got a little wrapped up in yourself there. I'm not quite sure what you're asking for there. Looks sort of like an awkward double negative. Might not wouldn't.
No, I'm trying to show you that you can't take things out of context. What he said, no spin, was that Congress should concentrate on jobs creation.
Please find one other news source anywhere that claims that thinking the quote means that is taking it out of context. Hell give me a blogger or opinion piece. You've got to be the only person on the planet defending this.
You did quote it directly, out of context, and your intention is clear.
My INTENTIONS override his actual words. Can you show anyone else claiming that direct quote means different from what I said? I've given several examples from multiple sources to support my conclusion as it is also theirs. Find any article out there that declares ol'JJ Jr is just misunderstood.
Can you show me that quote?
If they mattered, he would note them and understand them. He doesn't. He bemoans only the loss of older jobs from printing. He notes it with Borders and college textbooks.
Really? Can you show me where that is clear?
"Now Borders is closing stores because why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why do you need to go to Barnes & Noble?" Jackson said. "Buy an iPad and download your newspaper, download your book, download your magazine."
"What becomes of publishing companies and publishing company jobs? What becomes of bookstores and librarians and all of the jobs associated with paper?"
Those are very clear. He only notes all the jobs that are gone and speaks about none of the jobs that were created. He bemoans the loss of paper. It is the classic form of being a Luddite.
They weren't a good company to begin with in my opinion.
The iPad good for Jobs, Jackson says, but not good for jobs.
Can you show me that quote?
This one, too.
No, it's not. In the Rand quote, the idiiot was saying verbatim that this must be stopped. In the Jackson quote, the congressman was saying that Congress needs to concentrate on jobs creation, and showed an example of job loss.
It's not job loss though. It is reallocation of resources. It is like declaring all the jobs are gone because we don't all farm. At one time 97% of the population was engaged in agrarian jobs. Oh noes! Where did all the jobs go? We are now all unemployed because of tractors!
No new jobs were replaced and efficiency gains made the old jobs economically not viable. It becomes economically nonviable to pay someone to cut down a tree, turn it to paper, print on it, bind it, ship it, stock it and sale it when it can be done digitally. Sure more people have gone to work designing and assembling tablets, shipping them, selling them, etc and they do a lot more.
Rand was, as you are, oversimplifying.
Oversimplifying is reserved for those who cannot see the new jobs and only bemoan the old jobs.
Yep. So? Is that not true?
It is not true. Talk about a simplistic view! The entire smartphone and tablet industry has replaced these publishing jobs.
That's not at all what I got out of it. That's what you implied. By no means is that the meaning according to what I heard.
Clean your ears. "Steve Jobs is doing pretty well" "There is no protection for jobs here in America to ensure that the American people are being put to work."
No, it's not. These are your assumptions about his intention. This is not what he said.
I guess not, when you can simply take something out of context, ignore the message actually being conveyed, and draw your own assumptions to fit your political agenda.
Again I challenge you to find any media source defending this statement.