You guys realize the Bible is not the best source to reference for this discussion since it wasn't written in English right?

Also, the verb is not the same thing as the noun.

The Bible is the most widely read book in the English language. More copies of the Bible in English have been published than all English dictionaries combined.

Viva la difference

zomg .... seriously, you dont get it?

What an interesting thread!

Here we have the left leaning posters on this board saying that 'words don't mean anything' and quoting the Bible. However when a Bible quote is used to support the op's post, we are informed that the Bible is not a reliable source!

The remark is totally inappropriate, and anyone who says its a dig against pirates isn't reading the text properly. "We have to work together to stop people who selfishly pursue profits like warlords and pirates." The unspoken implication in the sentence is "such as, but not limited to, warlords and pirates." It's the same as saying "We have to work together to stop people who selfishly pursue profits."

If you don't see this I don't know what to say. The sentence structure and word choice is too blatant not to be a coincidence. He could have said "We have to work together to stop people who unjustly pursue profits like warlords and pirates."

Clearly you are reading the wrong text. Try reading what Obama actually said, not OP's interpretation of it.

Re-read the thread. That remark is not what Obama said. It's a not-accurate paraphrasing of what he said. Two very different things.

Edit: my pony too slow.

Many apologies, I thought it was a direct transcription.

Unless I missed another quotation, I don't think James 3 taken as a whole exactly supports the OP.

My point was when you're talking about a semantic argument about a word, a phrase from a book that came to English via translation through multiple languages is one of the worst sources you could pick, no matter how popular.

Language doesn't exist independent of the culture it is used in. It hardly matters that nearly 400 years ago the KJV was a work created via translation, as it has been a cultural touchstone, in and of itself, ever since.

As noted in the OP, it wasn't my interpretation of it, I was trying to recall what he said having heard it one time. The words that I think are important (associating pirates and profits) are the same.

If Obama actually gets around to saying something controversial instead of innocuous as in this case, try not to pop a blood vessel.

I am just trying to hold you to the standard you are holding Obama to.

So it would take a blanket prohibition on mentioning profits and bad people in the same sentence to satisfy you here? Is same paragraph still OK?


Do you seriously still not get it?

So long as is not using the word profit to inaccurately describe the bad thing they are doing, then I can't imagine that I would care. If he's going to go around saying that we have to work together to stop murderers and rapists from continuing to pursue their profits at the expense of others then it's probably going to keep irritating me.

I clearly don't have a problem with that. What's your point?

Just for the record, you seriously still don't understand why you were off base here, right?

Wow, can't believe this thread is still going on. No matter how much you try to assert it to be true, profits is not a term used only for legitimate businesses. Look at all the 'profits' Madoff was making before the scheme was uncovered. lolz

EDIT: This is clearly you looking for any reason to jump on Obama. Instead of picking a legitimate one you pick this, really? If he had changed what he said from: to
we know you'd have just come on here and tried to attack his word usage in a different way.

Come on people. Profit is revenue minus costs. As for Obama allegedly demonizing "profit" from lawful business activity, I think you guys are just plain wrong. You want to believe that he hates business and profit, but nothing he said indicates that. In fact, he says pretty much daily that economic growth, a byproduct of commercial profit, is his top priority.

Now obviously we can argue about whether his policies promote or deter the growth he seeks, but that's another conversation.

Not to be a total nit, but is there actually a quote of him saying the bolded?

Although I think the OP's point is very minor and don't think this thread should have ever lasted this long, I do agree with op, actually I think the real context the word was used in was worse than what Mosdef actually quoted...

flame away.

How would you guys prefer that Obama differentiate between international organizations that are motivated by ideology(terrorists) and those that have financial motivations(cartels, pirates, mafia, etc.)?

Is my use of "financial motivations" there already troubling?

I wonder what they want instead of the underlined part, to keep with the structure of the passage.

Actually, this is completely false. I was barely paying attention until he started talking about pirates and their profits. It was the specific word "profit" that caught my attention.